iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 9:28 pm
On the other hand, perhaps this...
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
...might be applicable here.
So, we don't really know for sure what was going on in Wittgenstein's mind, so perhaps we should be silent about that. A reasonable position.
But then, ironically.....
And needless to say, there are some here who really, really, really don't want to hear that.
So, you know what is 'really' going on in other people's mind and that they don't/wouldn't like this message from Wittgenstein (early Wittgenstein, which was quite different from the later Wittgenstein).
"His later belief was that language is an elastic, social, and sometimes ambiguous structure that necessarily defies simplistic definition because of its scope and complexity. Language's meaning, he believed, is defined by how it is used in daily life rather than by any logical structure that underlies it." NIH
He seemed to be more about exploring the limitations of philosophical language itself. And needless to say, there are some here who really, really, really don't want to hear that.
Right, but then he would then, more or less, eliminate the conundrum of determinism and responsibility. Wittgenstein’s idea of forms of life supports the notion that certain concepts are embedded within the practices and activities that make up human life. Responsibility is one such concept that is deeply rooted in social practices, moral judgments, and legal systems. It operates meaningfully within these practices regardless of whether we think about the metaphysical underpinnings of free will or determinism. So, the entire go over and over what it might mean if things are determined and could we hold someone responsible is trying to talk about things using everyday language where it is not appropriate: metaphysical issues. He would find no reason NOT to hold people responsible for their actiions. This doesn't make him a compatibilist, since that includes positive statements about metaphysics, but it in no way supports and in fact would likely make him critical of assuming that and worrying that determinism means we can't hold people responsible or there being something wrong with that morally.
In the language game of everyday moral and legal talk, the question of whether we are determined by physical laws or possess libertarian free will rarely comes into play. The concept of responsibility functions within this game as a way of holding people accountable, setting social norms, and guiding behavior. Wittgenstein might argue that this use of language is what gives responsibility its meaning, not any metaphysical foundation.
The language of causality and determinism belongs to one type of discourse (e.g., scientific or metaphysical), while the language of choice and responsibility belongs to another (e.g., social or moral), and so he might well have, and it seems in his life had a pragmatic resolution: From a Wittgensteinian standpoint, one could argue that the concept of responsibility is meaningful and functional in everyday life, regardless of whether determinism is true. This resembles the compatibilist view that free will and determinism can coexist because moral responsibility depends on the practical use of concepts rather than their metaphysical basis.
Remember, Wittgenstein directly disagrees with the idea of wrestling with metaphysical truths (determinism vs. free will, objective vs subjective morals) and would see any obsession with such ideas and trying to figure out what they indicate about how one should live
as Philosophical Confusion and Misuse of Language. Looking up his thoughts around these ideas might be something you might not want to hear. Because I don't think you quite understand how his thoughts about the limitations of language actually undermine, if believed, the entire project of many of your threads. Are you trying to stretch the use of these words beyond what they mean in everyday life and causing yourself problems? You might want to look also at his ideas about philosophy as therapy. IOW if you want to refer to Wittgenstein as an authority critical of what philosophers here are doing, you might want yourself to see what he would think about how they way you think about these very abstract issues is causal in your suffering and follow his recommendations about your own language use and focus. Your positions on these issues and how you suffer, relate directly to using metaphysical ideas and trying to squeeze these into everyday life.
“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” (Philosophical Investigations, §109)
“The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have always known.” (Philosophical Investigations, §109)
“What we do is to bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use.” (Philosophical Investigations, §116)
Here saying that the role of philosophy is not to construct grand theories but to remind us of how language works in practice. When words like freedom, morality, or truth are lifted into the realm of metaphysics, they can lead to confusion and the creation of problems that do not exist in their everyday application.
“Think of the tools in a toolbox: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screwdriver, a rule, a glue-pot, nails, and screws.—The functions of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects.” (Philosophical Investigations, §11)
This is an issue I have long thought of raising with you and perhaps tried once long ago. You treat words as containers - as do most of us, most of the time, rather than in the Wittgensteinian sense of things that do things. But that's a very paradigm focused area and we can't seem to manage to get anywhere with much easier topics.
In any case, as a philosopher he's hardly fractured and fragmented, for example, about the objectivity of morals:
“Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.” (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 2.1)