Page 2 of 2
Re: Philosophy now?
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:40 pm
by HexHammer
Dear Bernard it seems I can't have a rational conversatino with you, so I just bette wait till you are ready.
Re: Philosophy now?
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:51 pm
by Andy Kay
Andy Kay wrote:I'm inclined to regard philosophy as the process of trying to think more clearly about a specific subject matter, hence the different branches of philosophy. As such I think Wittgenstein contributed a lot in showing us that many philosophical problems reduce to nothing more than linguistically induced muddled thinking.
bernard wrote:Language is fizzling then?
Wittgenstein's point was that words are like tools in a toolbox that we employ to modify each other's behaviour. But the form of some of these words seduces us into certain misconceptions that, without due care, can lead to a senseless variety of philosophical speculation. He exhorts us to find the meaning of a word by looking at how the word is /used/ rather than by trying to work out its essence (in fact he claims that words have no essence, but rather they are used in a variety of different "language games" across which a particular word exhibits a family resemblance rather than a common essence). This has nothing to do with language "fizzling" and everything to do with pseudo-problems in philosophy.
Re: Philosophy now?
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:13 pm
by Bernard
Yes, but how much relevance has Wittgenstein now? He was navel chastising philosophy and also imbibing a mood of sadness and decline to its language, however accurate his observations. I don't mean to say he was mean spirited but his accuracy had tendency to spawn the navel gazing tha soon became so prevalent.
Re: Philosophy now?
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:04 pm
by Andy Kay
If you're saying that you disagree with the aspect of his philosophy that I outlined above, can you give some substance to your repudiation?
Re: Philosophy now?
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:26 pm
by Bernard
No I don't disagree with it, though I think words can be infused with an intent, or essence, but are fundamentally carriers only.
Where I disagree with Wittgenstein as a whole is that logic isn't the only cognitive ability we have through which to solve problems.
Re: Philosophy now?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:27 am
by Andy Kay
Bernard wrote:No I don't disagree with it,
Then W must still be relevant today.
Bernard wrote:though I think words can be infused with an intent, or essence, but are fundamentally carriers only.
I'm not quite following this... as I understand the word an /essence/ isn't something a word can be "infused with" but something that is common to the meaning of a word across all of its various uses.
But words can acquire new uses, which might tie up with your claim that they can be "infused with an intent".
Bernard wrote:Where I disagree with Wittgenstein as a whole is that logic isn't the only cognitive ability we have through which to solve problems.
There are various ways to use the word "problem", and logic is helpful in finding a solution in some but not all of those cases. Do you think this comes into conflict with W's mature views on language use?
Re: Philosophy now?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:39 am
by Bernard
Andy Kay wrote:Bernard wrote:No I don't disagree with it,
Then W must still be relevant today.
Indeed!
Bernard wrote:though I think words can be infused with an intent, or essence, but are fundamentally carriers only.
I'm not quite following this... as I understand the word an /essence/ isn't something a word can be "infused with" but something that is common to the meaning of a word across all of its various uses.
But words can acquire new uses, which might tie up with your claim that they can be "infused with an intent".
Yes. I don't think anyone regards words have having any sort of animation beyond the animation of the user, yet words are sound waves and as such are an extension of the user much like a strike from a hand is of the user and not separate from the user. (I think the written word can be included here, with some argument, as the written word has very similar effects as the spoken word upon the receiver). So I think there is personal essence and taxonimical essence, the latter being the dime for a dozen type. If words do acquire new essence it will only occur through the impact of personal essence of words upon the taxonomical/syntactical essense.
Bernard wrote:Where I disagree with Wittgenstein as a whole is that logic isn't the only cognitive ability we have through which to solve problems.
There are various ways to use the word "problem", and logic is helpful in finding a solution in some but not all of those cases. Do you think this comes into conflict with W's mature views on language use?
No, because philosophy is 97% thinking, not the expressions of what is thought. Wittgenstein doesn't seem to consider language to limit reason for the individual thinker - again, the dichotomy between the personal essence of words and syntactical essence rears itself. I think his mature view is very useful in helping to be aware of the dichotomy