Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Gary Childress » Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:56 am

It appears, according to some interpretations of Wittgenstein's Tractatus (TLP here forward), that Ludwig Wittgenstein (LW from here forward) divided the world into two realms, that of "sense" and that of "nonsense"? Is that the case?

And if that is the case, how would "sense" and "nonsense" be respectively defined?

And also if such is the case for LW, is it true that science fits into the realm of "sense" and most topics of philosophy (such as ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics etc.) fit the realm of "nonsense"?

Just trying to figure out what all that is supposed to mean. I got it from this page:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Blaggard » Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:01 am

More than you can imagine.

You came to the right place for Wittgenstein fans, and of course Bertrand Russel fans by contingent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r6NY4Kl8Ms

This should help you keep up. Faculty of numbers except 90. Be warned it contains material nsfw.

I think to be serious for a moment, he had a fine grasp of what was sense and hence what was nonsense but it took many years before it became formalised, often by his students and peers.

User avatar
NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by NielsBohr » Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:05 pm

Gary Childress wrote: And if that is the case, how would "sense" and "nonsense" be respectively defined?
-Let's take it literally!

Most of logics, at least informal or verbose one invite us in considering premisses at the plural, to let us construct some inferences, at least two, the last being the conclusion.

Some singular premise in such is rare, and I think consider rather one sentence containing two (premisses) separated with a coma.

This told, a premise does not necessarily contain an implication. This is why they are most often plural (no sense is given with a simple - even true - proposition).

A particular counterexample, is the sophism, as:
-"Earth is spherical",
-"An orange is spherical";

-->"So, the earth is an orange".

The notion of sophism is not a subjective prejudice a priori

Effectively, in this counterexample, the two "hypothesis" (rather than constituting a real premise because of what follow) converge to a common (shared) property. But the "conclusion" does not conserve the "sense" (or the direction) of the second hypothesis.

Explicitly, an orange has something of a more general property, what obviously is not reversible, knowing that (if an orange is necessarily (with some admitted approximation) spherical), the proper general concept of spherical, nominating, the sphere is not necessarily an orange, and not even orange in colour.

The conclusion "respect" the sense of the first hypothesis, but does not conserve the sense of the second.


-A rectified possible example, were:
-The Earth is spherical,
-The sphere, when projected, is a circle,
-The circle cannot be the subject of an exact square approximation,
-So we cannot know exactly the measurement of the Earth's periphery.


-The contestation I would oppose against Wittgenstein, is that he consider only the results in a sense, what ignore totally the truth of the sense itself as a general processus.

-To illustrate my reflexion, I will show you some notions I have as a computer learner:
The most popular language about modeling is UML 2, said "Object oriented". Many programmer use this. But it is only a language, and not a method.

The real method over UML, is Unified Process.

So if Wittgenstein was living nowadays, his thought would lead to say if some intermediate results - punctual models - are true, but would not consider if, typically, their order, if their ordination is true.

And that can lead to a disaster, because we were believing that the results were true, while their sense was void !!

This is why I believe that Wittgenstein is mistaking.

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Mark Question » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:29 am

Language is a language. Logic is a method in more or less logical language.

Earth is spherical
Orange is spherical
Earth is orange
Orange is fruit
Earth is not fruit
Earth is not orange
Earths shape is spherical
Oranges shape is spherical
Earths shape is oranges shape

Logical truth is 100% logically true.
Language is a modelling tool.
Models are copies not 100% originals.

What we can not say in languages we must silent.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Ginkgo » Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:12 am

Gary Childress wrote:It appears, according to some interpretations of Wittgenstein's Tractatus (TLP here forward), that Ludwig Wittgenstein (LW from here forward) divided the world into two realms, that of "sense" and that of "nonsense"? Is that the case?

And if that is the case, how would "sense" and "nonsense" be respectively defined?

And also if such is the case for LW, is it true that science fits into the realm of "sense" and most topics of philosophy (such as ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics etc.) fit the realm of "nonsense"?

Just trying to figure out what all that is supposed to mean. I got it from this page:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

It basically means that in the early part of the 1900s Wittgenstein came to realize that the search for a precise language that accurately reflected the world could not be realized. In other words, he had abandoned his earlier theories in respect to the accuracy and reliability of language. Another way of looking at this would be to see Wittgenstein as mounting an attack on himself as well as Russell's atomism.

The latter Wittgenstein (as opposed to the earlier Wittgenstein) came to realize that language is something that is developed in a variety of ways and by a variety of different approaches. According to Wittgenstein language is learned in the same way as we would learn a game. Wittgenstein is attempting to show that language is a description for events rather than (as the atomists proposed)- a prescription.

User avatar
NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by NielsBohr » Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:08 pm

Mark Question wrote:Language is a language. Logic is a method in more or less logical language.
Hi Mark,

I don't even think that logic is a method, because its premisses can lead to any construction. Moreover, using "more or less logical language", you obviously refer to different kinds of logics.

Some consider logic as talking only about itself, because of its purity (no unit, no time).

While logic can at most be a language, a method appears as being a meta-language, or even more than that.

A method is led thank to the belief (in contrary, a language can lead everywhere, even in poetry).

Sappho de Miranda
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Sappho de Miranda » Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:41 pm

Blaggard wrote:More than you can imagine.

You came to the right place for Wittgenstein fans, and of course Bertrand Russel fans by contingent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r6NY4Kl8Ms

This should help you keep up. Faculty of numbers except 90. Be warned it contains material nsfw.

I think to be serious for a moment, he had a fine grasp of what was sense and hence what was nonsense but it took many years before it became formalised, often by his students and peers.
That was very clever... LOL... thank you Blaggard.

Otherwise... important to understand the man to understand his work in this case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_4psjBYOg

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:18 pm

I enjoy Wittgenstein a great deal, but unfortunately not in detail x)

He and I have a more over distance relationship.

Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Mark Question » Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:22 am

NielsBohr wrote:
Mark Question wrote:Language is a language. Logic is a method in more or less logical language.
Hi Mark,

I don't even think that logic is a method, because its premisses can lead to any construction. Moreover, using "more or less logical language", you obviously refer to different kinds of logics.

Some consider logic as talking only about itself, because of its purity (no unit, no time).

While logic can at most be a language, a method appears as being a meta-language, or even more than that.

A method is led thank to the belief (in contrary, a language can lead everywhere, even in poetry).
like in Mathematics, different premisses lead logically different ways. Logic must lead logically from premisses. In every language and in every thought, logic is the metarules.

Illogical or less logical thinking, badly analyzed thoughts can lead everywhere. Not logic as a set of rules of proper thinking.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by HexHammer » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:15 am

Gary Childress wrote:And if that is the case, how would "sense" and "nonsense" be respectively defined?
This is a good indication of why cozy chatters (socalled philosophers) are utterly useless, as they exorbiant amount of time on very basic things.
They would be fired from any serious buisness, when they can't make a simple correspondence with another person, but begins to ask having basic words explained.

When normal people builds rockets and high tech computers, cozy chatters would forever more build mud huts and beat hollow trunks with sticks.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Ginkgo » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:37 am

HexHammer wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:And if that is the case, how would "sense" and "nonsense" be respectively defined?
This is a good indication of why cozy chatters (socalled philosophers) are utterly useless, as they exorbiant amount of time on very basic things.
They would be fired from any serious buisness, when they can't make a simple correspondence with another person, but begins to ask having basic words explained.

When normal people builds rockets and high tech computers, cozy chatters would forever more build mud huts and beat hollow trunks with sticks.

It think Wittgenstein may as well have been investigating why we exist and why are we here. In essence this is what he was actually doing.

Wittgenstein was interested in language and how it works. Why? Because it is there. No money to be made in finding the answers to that question.

Why was the Hubble telescope launched? Not much money to be made in selling glossy colour photographs of the universe. The main reason it was launched was to help answers similar questions. Why are we here and what is our purpose? Again, no money to be made in answering that question.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by HexHammer » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:50 am

Ginkgo wrote:Why was the Hubble telescope launched? Not much money to be made in selling glossy colour photographs of the universe. The main reason it was launched was to help answers similar questions. Why are we here and what is our purpose? Again, no money to be made in answering that question.
Piss poor anology!

Hubble Telescope was lauched because stationary ground telescopes at that time didn't have adaptive techonology to compensate for the blurring of the atmosphere, so Hubble could bypass that and take sharp photos of the universe.

Get your fatcs straight.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Ginkgo » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:53 am

HexHammer wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:Why was the Hubble telescope launched? Not much money to be made in selling glossy colour photographs of the universe. The main reason it was launched was to help answers similar questions. Why are we here and what is our purpose? Again, no money to be made in answering that question.
Piss poor anology!

Hubble Telescope was lauched because stationary ground telescopes at that time didn't have adaptive techonology to compensate for the blurring of the atmosphere, so Hubble could bypass that and take sharp photos of the universe.

Get your fatcs straight.
That would be a functional explanation as to why the telescope was launched. Science is very good at providing functional explanations. The other explanation that goes hand in hand with functionalism is purpose. Philosophy has a great deal to say about puropse.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by HexHammer » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:59 am

Ginkgo wrote:That would be a functional explanation as to why the telescope was launched. Science is very good at providing functional explanations. The other explanation that goes hand in hand with functionalism is purpose. Philosophy has a great deal to say about puropse.
Yes yes, u'r trying to dodge the fact that it was a very poor anology.

However, what OP asked are already well defined in books, and even if Witten' has added to the definition OP has been to lazy to read up on it, and ask other people to do the thinking for him.

He should come prepared and ask qualifyed question, instead of glaringly ignorent questions.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Any Wittgenstein Followers here?

Post by Ginkgo » Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:02 pm

HexHammer wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:That would be a functional explanation as to why the telescope was launched. Science is very good at providing functional explanations. The other explanation that goes hand in hand with functionalism is purpose. Philosophy has a great deal to say about puropse.
Yes yes, u'r trying to dodge the fact that it was a very poor anology.

However, what OP asked are already well defined in books, and even if Witten' has added to the definition OP has been to lazy to read up on it, and ask other people to do the thinking for him.

He should come prepared and ask qualifyed question, instead of glaringly ignorent questions.

Yes, it was a poor analogy, but it was the best I could do off the top of my head. I will do better next time.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests