What's W 'On Certainty' Main theme?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And yet, about the notes that make up On Certainty, G.H. von Wright has this to say:

During the last year and a half of his life, Wittgenstein wrote almost exclusively about knowledge and certainty.
These writings possess a thematic unity which makes them almost unique in Wittgenstein’s whole literary output.…Considering that the remarks constitute a first, unrevised manuscript they seem to me remarkably accomplished both in form and content. (1982, 166)

That, in spite of being unpolished, these notes possess a thematic unity unparalleled in Wittgenstein’s other writings3 and seem remarkably accomplished, is not fortuitous.
They are an attempt by Wittgenstein to unravel the knots of a specific philosophical problem which he felt was posed by some of G.E. Moore’s essays; and this attempt lasted a year and a half.
Understanding Wittgenstein’s On Certainty
Danièle Moyal-Sharrock

Moore's essays are traceable to Kant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.
Do you have one of those dumb speed reading techniques where you just read the first line of each paragraph?


It's about doubt. You are never short of confidence, you should learn to doubt a lot more.

I will go through the lecture more seriously this time.

You are so arrogant based on ignorance.
There are loads of speed reading techniques out there.
Perhaps that is the way you attempt to speed read at book that you think I am doing the same.

I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

Actually I have just noticed over the years that you are very bad at reading and you never follow what other people are writing very well. An overreliance on speed reading is often a proximate cause for such problems. Complicated philosophical works might be best read the normal way. Remember that time you claimed to read a paper "at least 20 times" and it was incredibly easy for me to know that you had never read it properly even once? Don't do that again please.

Show a quote where I am actually saying that on certainty is this bedrock I rely on. It's a good book, but that's all.

I am preparing a listing of references from On Certainty to justify my point that W's On Certainty leads to a FSRC basis;

Here is some relevant amongst the many where his focus on certainty, doubt and knowledge are conditioned upon a framework and system;

I am refreshing my reading of Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty.’
I have read it halfway so far, the main theme of “On Certainty” is reducible to Framework and System where Wittgenstein’s Language Games is a human-based Linguistic FSK [FSRC], e.g. [a few among a long list]

83. The truth of certain empirical propositions belongs to our frame of reference.
105. All testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system.

141. When we first begin to believe anything, what we believe is not a single proposition, it is a whole system of propositions.

410. Our knowledge forms an enormous system. And only within this system has a particular bit the value we give it.

411. If I say "we assume that the earth has existed for many years past" (or something similar), then of course it sounds strange that we should assume such a thing.
But in the entire system of our Language-Games it belongs to the foundations.
The assumption, one might say, forms the basis of action, and therefore, naturally, of thought.

"On Certainty"

Note the historical basis of 'On Certainty' traceable to Kant's philosophy back to when philosophy first emerged and to the Bib Bang.
viewtopic.php?t=41948

[FlashDangerpants]

I have just finished the book. Will go through it again. I have also read some secondary texts and articles related to 'On Certainty'.

Are you even aware of its historical context?

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.

This video is about W's Language Games not a focus on "On Certainty" so not does not meet the OP.

You have to tell me "What is W 'On Certainty' Main theme" from your reading understanding of W's On Certainty.

The wider context in which Wittgenstein lived is the context for language games and for the Tractatus and for the PI, the grean and brown books and this book too.

No I don't.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am preparing a listing of references from On Certainty to justify my point that W's On Certainty leads to a FSRC basis;

Well that's going to be a fuck up then.

[FlashDangerpants]

I will go through the lecture more seriously this time.

You are so arrogant based on ignorance.
There are loads of speed reading techniques out there.
Perhaps that is the way you attempt to speed read at book that you think I am doing the same.

I am confident your views on 'On Certainty' which is one of your bedrock is half-cooked and bias to your ignorance.

Actually I have just noticed over the years that you are very bad at reading and you never follow what other people are writing very well. An overreliance on speed reading is often a proximate cause for such problems. Complicated philosophical works might be best read the normal way. Remember that time you claimed to read a paper "at least 20 times" and it was incredibly easy for me to know that you had never read it properly even once? Don't do that again please.

Show a quote where I am actually saying that on certainty is this bedrock I rely on. It's a good book, but that's all.

You made reference to 'On Certainty' is few time in countering my views with some sense of arrogance and confidence.
Since you have not made reference to other book, I take it that what you gathered [insufficiently] from OC is one of your central supporting philosophies.
Yours is that of Ordinary Language Philosophy and you think OC backs OLP.

You assume often but you don't do it very well. Also you don't observe very well. I have been criticising your work for many years now and I only deploy ordinary language based arguments for specific tasks where there is a language problem in your argument. So that would be when you just fabulate a new meaning for moarlity that doesn't include or even allow discussion of good and bad for instance.

You want me to be easy for you to categorise, but so far you are missing the mark by a wide margin. You lack the subtlety to ever manage this thing you are trying to do.

With my method [you are ignorant of] I can easily read a 20 pages article fast and easily.
Note I have not read a physical book or article [>10 pages] for a very long long time.
I always convert whatever book and article into digital into Words or in Excel columns where I reformat to my requirements.

Re Grayling's video I had downloaded the transcripts into Words for reformatting while I listen to it.

I don't know why you would put a text into Excel, but I am no longer surprised by weird things you do.

I am sure you can read 20 pages very fast indeed, but I have observed that whatever timne you save by reading fast would probably be better spent reading well. In this thread you claimed to have read a paper by Boyd at least 20 times.
viewtopic.php?t=29659
But you read it wrong, you fucked up, that paper does not accuse "[e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse" and it should be obvious anyway that had it claimed all moral antirealists have brain damage, that would have ended to the careers of the author himself as well as both the editor and publisher who carried the work.

You need to read better, so try reading without stupid tricks.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Go and watch the Grayling video I provided for context.

This video is about W's Language Games not a focus on "On Certainty" so not does not meet the OP.

You have to tell me "What is W 'On Certainty' Main theme" from your reading understanding of W's On Certainty.

The wider context in which Wittgenstein lived is the context for language games and for the Tractatus and for the PI, the grean and brown books and this book too.

No I don't.

I have many secondary texts re 'On Certainty' which is very contentious.

You think you are a God in terms of Wittgenstein's On Certainty, but note this;

Wittgenstein’s philosophical purpose vis-a`-vis the skeptic in On Certainty is a matter for dispute. He has variously been held

• 1. to refute skepticism by showing that it is self-defeating;1
  2. to reveal the truth in skepticism and to offer an accommodation with it;2 and
  3. to diagnose the misconceptions that underlie skeptical doubt, which does not itself constitute a refutation of skepticism but opens the way to our liberating ourselves from its philosophical grip.3

These three approaches to interpreting the remarks collected in On Certainty do not, I am sure, amount to an exhaustive classification of the interpretations put forward in the secondary literature.

WITTGENSTEIN ON CERTAINTY
Marie Mcginn
in
Chapter 17
in Oxford Handbook of Skepticism

I believe Mcginn missed the critical fundamental, i.e. the FRSC basis that grounds certainty, doubts and knowledge.
Note my FSK [knowledge] and I extend it wider to FS of Emergence, Realization of Reality, Cognition [knowledge] [FSERC].
Wittgenstein's language games merely represent an insufficient range of my FSERC.

I still use the simple convenient term FSK which implies the full abbreviation FSERC. Now I often use FSRC.

Everytime I cornered you as in On Certainty you will give all sort of excuses, i.e. On Certainty is just a good book, Rorty only to show the mirror, etc.
Basically you have nothing of substance, except complains [rude ones].
I am confident [it is a matter of time as long as you don't cracked] I can checkmate all your moves in the context of your limited philosophy of reality.

[FlashDangerpants]

This video is about W's Language Games not a focus on "On Certainty" so not does not meet the OP.

You have to tell me "What is W 'On Certainty' Main theme" from your reading understanding of W's On Certainty.

The wider context in which Wittgenstein lived is the context for language games and for the Tractatus and for the PI, the grean and brown books and this book too.

No I don't.

I have many secondary texts re 'On Certainty' which is very contentious.

You think you are a God in terms of Wittgenstein's On Certainty, but note this;

Why would I indulge in such extravagance? I don't need to be a God to be better than you at any subject which involves reading and comprehension? I can just be average and pretty much win before the contest starts.

Wittgenstein’s philosophical purpose vis-a`-vis the skeptic in On Certainty is a matter for dispute. He has variously been held

• 1. to refute skepticism by showing that it is self-defeating;1
  2. to reveal the truth in skepticism and to offer an accommodation with it;2 and
  3. to diagnose the misconceptions that underlie skeptical doubt, which does not itself constitute a refutation of skepticism but opens the way to our liberating ourselves from its philosophical grip.3

These three approaches to interpreting the remarks collected in On Certainty do not, I am sure, amount to an exhaustive classification of the interpretations put forward in the secondary literature.

WITTGENSTEIN ON CERTAINTY
Marie Mcginn
in
Chapter 17
in Oxford Handbook of Skepticism

Hopefully you already picked up that I tend towards the third option, but I get the other two.

.... FRSC .....

Hard hope on that bullshit. You are the only person in the world who believes in your weird hiearchy of KFCs. Even if you could get somebody to take the most basic part of the KFC idea seriously at first, once you tell them about credibility and the meta-kfc-bucket-of-comparing they will start to look for the exit because that nonsense is quite mad. IWP tried too hard to work with you on that for a long time, that's probably why he's so pissed at you now.

Everytime I cornered you as in On Certainty you will give all sort of excuses, i.e. On Certainty is just a good book, Rorty only to show the mirror, etc.
Basically you have nothing of substance, except complains [rude ones].
I am confident [it is a matter of time as long as you don't cracked] I can checkmate all your moves in the context of your limited philosophy of reality.

Have you thought that maybe I am not wasting effort on some mind game against you? I am never concerned that you will checkmate me or even outwit me. I only like the opening of the mirror, I think the book falls apart a little bit soon afterwards (which is not to say its all bad).

If you had read Berlin instead of being an obnoxious fool about it, you would have found that he's a Kantian in many regards, and a moral realist (not in a Kantian way though). None of that bothers me, he's my favourite philosopher but I don't worry about not agreeing with his work where I don't think he's right. Likewise, if I don't think there is a significant languistic aspect to a particular philosophical issue, I don't invoke Wittgenstein, there's no need to.

This assumption you make that I think the way you do, even though I show often that I don't, will lead to your failure in this latest weird endeavour.

[promethean75]

"from you have posted, you are most likely a philosophical or metaphysical realist. Can you confirm?"

Affirmative. I'm an OG materialist like Democritus or Hobbes. Realism is much more parsimonious than anti-realism and it creates far less new theoretical problems.

Also i think u may be subconsciously motived to be hostile to realism becuz u can't settle with the fact that realism cannot provide a foundation for morality and ethics.

U dont like the consequences of materialism becuz it's Machiavellian, and u want moral order based on sound reasoning that isn't just an expression of might making right. So, u pick some anti-realism to side with so u can forward your secret ethics agenda. You're tryna save morality and your interest in epistemology is feigned.

[Atla]

With my method [you are ignorant of] I can easily read a 20 pages article fast and easily.
Note I have not read a physical book or article [>10 pages] for a very long long time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"from you have posted, you are most likely a philosophical or metaphysical realist. Can you confirm?"

Affirmative. I'm an OG materialist like Democritus or Hobbes. Realism is much more parsimonious than anti-realism and it creates far less new theoretical problems.

Also i think u may be subconsciously motived to be hostile to realism becuz u can't settle with the fact that realism cannot provide a foundation for morality and ethics.

U dont like the consequences of materialism becuz it's Machiavellian, and u want moral order based on sound reasoning that isn't just an expression of might making right. So, u pick some anti-realism to side with so u can forward your secret ethics agenda. You're tryna save morality and your interest in epistemology is feigned.

I was born by default to be a realist-in-general and then I got into theological realism.
Now I am a practicing empirical realist but not into an ideological philosophical realist.
This change is a sign of progress in one's intellectual capacity and wisdom.

It would be reasonable for you to understand the whole range of criticisms against the default p-realism [and establish solid counters] before you believe p-realism ideologically as the only way in representing reality.

Being stuck as a p-realist since childhood to the present adult stage is due to psychology, i.e. driven by an existential crisis.
This is so obvious with the theological realists and the same with p-realists in a more subtle form.

Also i think u may be subconsciously motived to be hostile to realism becuz u can't settle with the fact that realism cannot provide a foundation for morality and ethics.

Wrong.
From the moral perspective, I am a moral-realist.
I believe there are mind-independent moral facts and moral elements.

If you are a p-realist, you are likely to be a moral relativists or moral skeptic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The wider context in which Wittgenstein lived is the context for language games and for the Tractatus and for the PI, the grean and brown books and this book too.

No I don't.

I have many secondary texts re 'On Certainty' which is very contentious.

You think you are a God in terms of Wittgenstein's On Certainty, but note this;

Why would I indulge in such extravagance? I don't need to be a God to be better than you at any subject which involves reading and comprehension? I can just be average and pretty much win before the contest starts.

Wittgenstein’s philosophical purpose vis-a`-vis the skeptic in On Certainty is a matter for dispute. He has variously been held

• 1. to refute skepticism by showing that it is self-defeating;1
  2. to reveal the truth in skepticism and to offer an accommodation with it;2 and
  3. to diagnose the misconceptions that underlie skeptical doubt, which does not itself constitute a refutation of skepticism but opens the way to our liberating ourselves from its philosophical grip.3

These three approaches to interpreting the remarks collected in On Certainty do not, I am sure, amount to an exhaustive classification of the interpretations put forward in the secondary literature.

WITTGENSTEIN ON CERTAINTY
Marie Mcginn
in
Chapter 17
in Oxford Handbook of Skepticism

Hopefully you already picked up that I tend towards the third option, but I get the other two.

My point above is to highlight that there is a wide range of interpretations of W's On Certainty.

The three interpretations are still limited.
As such, your interpretation is limited and not thorough.

.... FRSC .....

Hard hope on that bullshit. You are the only person in the world who believes in your weird hiearchy of KFCs. Even if you could get somebody to take the most basic part of the KFC idea seriously at first, once you tell them about credibility and the meta-kfc-bucket-of-comparing they will start to look for the exit because that nonsense is quite mad. IWP tried too hard to work with you on that for a long time, that's probably why he's so pissed at you now.

Everytime I cornered you as in On Certainty you will give all sort of excuses, i.e. On Certainty is just a good book, Rorty only to show the mirror, etc.
Basically you have nothing of substance, except complains [rude ones].
I am confident [it is a matter of time as long as you don't cracked] I can checkmate all your moves in the context of your limited philosophy of reality.

Have you thought that maybe I am not wasting effort on some mind game against you? I am never concerned that you will checkmate me or even outwit me. I only like the opening of the mirror, I think the book falls apart a little bit soon afterwards (which is not to say its all bad).

If you had read Berlin instead of being an obnoxious fool about it, you would have found that he's a Kantian in many regards, and a moral realist (not in a Kantian way though). None of that bothers me, he's my favourite philosopher but I don't worry about not agreeing with his work where I don't think he's right. Likewise, if I don't think there is a significant languistic aspect to a particular philosophical issue, I don't invoke Wittgenstein, there's no need to.

This assumption you make that I think the way you do, even though I show often that I don't, will lead to your failure in this latest weird endeavour.

Here is one interpretation of 'On Certainty' which aligns with my FSRC.

Wittgenstein’s On Certainty and Relativism
Martin Kusch
I shall give my own interpretation of On Certainty in relation to epistemic relativism.
I now shall try to give a brief summary of these arguments.
I begin with the “pro” case and shall focus on three authors, Paul Boghossian, Anthony Grayling and Rudolf Haller.

Features of an Epistemic System or Practice
(1) Dependence: A belief has an epistemic status (as epistemically justified or unjustified) only relative to an epistemic system or practice (=SP). (Cf. Williams 2007, p. 94).
(2) Plurality: There are, have been, or could be, more than one such epistemic system or practice.
(3) Exclusiveness: SPs are exclusive of one another.

SP is not exactly the same with my FSRC, but the fundamental is the same, i.e. there is the Framework and System underlying it.

Likewise, if I don't think there is a significant linguistic aspect to a particular philosophical issue, I don't invoke Wittgenstein, there's no need to.

You asked me to refer to A C Grayling video re Wittgenstein, but according to Kusch, Grayling is in the pro Epistemic Relativism and Practice camp which I argue aligns with my FSRC;

Grayling and Haller cite the following paragraphs in evidence:

65. When language-games change, then there is a change in concepts, and with the concepts the meanings of words change.
95. The propositions describing this world-picture might be part of a kind of mythology.
99. And the bank of the river consists partly of hard rock, subject to no alteration or only to an imperceptible one, partly of sand, which now in one place now in another gets washed away, or deposited.
166. The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing.
256. On the other hand a language game does change with time.
336. But what men consider reasonable or unreasonable changes.

§§65, 99, 256, and 336 all emphasize the occurrence of fundamental change: in language-games, concepts, word meaning, and rationality.
This for Grayling is “classically strong relativism” since it “constitutes a claim that the framework within which claims to knowledge and challenges of doubt equally make sense is such that its change can reverse what counted as either” (2001, p. 308).
§§94, 95, and 166 in turn raise the question “what if the background—e.g. your picture of the world—[were] different?” (Haller 1995, p. 229)
Does not Wittgenstein imply that there is nothing that can be said about such a scenario?
At least nothing evaluative?
It appears that “we remain without any ground for the decision between conflicting judgements based on different world pictures.” (Haller 1995, p. 230)
Boghossian suggests that it is first and foremost paragraphs §§609-612 that express a commitment to epistemic relativism (2006, p. 107):

609 Suppose we met people who … instead of the physicist … consult an oracle.
610 … —If we call this ‘wrong’ aren’t we using our language-game as a base from which to combat theirs?
611 Are we right or wrong to combat it? Of course there are all sorts of slogans which will be used to support our proceedings.
612 Where two principles clash that cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic.
613 I said I would ‘combat’ the other man,—but wouldn’t I give him reasons? Certainly; but … at the end of reasons comes persuasion.
614 (Think what happens when missionaries convert natives.)

If you are into OLP, then language is fundamental to all philosophical issues.

You seem to be evasive. This is why I still trying to establish the full extent of the philosophies you align with.

Say if we list down all the full range of Western philosophical ideas from 800 BCE to the present [2024], which is the ones you align with the most with its relevant weightages [not the useful of weightages you condemned]?

I can easily summarized mine which is those of the antirealists of the Kantian kind and I can extent that to Eastern Philosophies as well.
When I use realists vs antirealist in this case, it make simplification so easy, I don't have to list the individual philosophy on first take.

[FlashDangerpants]

Say if we list down all the full range of Western philosophical ideas from 800 BCE to the present [2024], which is the ones you align with the most with its relevant weightages [not the useful of weightages you condemned]?

The fact that this notion makes sense to you is why you will never understand.

But go on then. You give me a definitive (intelligible) list of all the ideas of western philosophy since 800 BCE and let's see how that goes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Say if we list down all the full range of Western philosophical ideas from 800 BCE to the present [2024], which is the ones you align with the most with its relevant weightages [not the useful of weightages you condemned]?

The fact that this notion makes sense to you is why you will never understand.

But go on then. You give me a definitive (intelligible) list of all the ideas of western philosophy since 800 BCE and let's see how that goes.

Here it is, the ideas as related to the list of philosophers;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ilosophers
If you have read widely you would have understand what each of the majority of philosopher's ideas are.

One of the first book I read of Western Philosophy was Russell's
History of Western Philosophy.

So far, I have >18,000 files [books, articles and notes] in my Philosophy Folder with >1000 subfolders [with some duplications]. My Kant folder has 4300 files in 200 subfolders which signify the high weightage I placed on Kantianism.

So, which are the philosophers and their ideas you align with the most with its relevant weightages [note the useful of weightages you condemned]?
If you have a 'Philosophy' folder in your hard-disk you may be able to infer from there.

[FlashDangerpants]

Say if we list down all the full range of Western philosophical ideas from 800 BCE to the present [2024], which is the ones you align with the most with its relevant weightages [not the useful of weightages you condemned]?

The fact that this notion makes sense to you is why you will never understand.

But go on then. You give me a definitive (intelligible) list of all the ideas of western philosophy since 800 BCE and let's see how that goes.

Here it is, the ideas as related to the list of philosophers;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ilosophers
If you have read widely you would have understand what each of the majority of philosopher's ideas are.

That's not a list of ideas, it's a list of philosophers. Frege only gets described as "Influential analytic philosopher"
It doesn't even list Berlin. It's not what you were offering, you have tried a bait and switch on me.

One of the first book I read of Western Philosophy was Russell's
History of Western Philosophy.

So far, I have >18,000 files [books, articles and notes] in my Philosophy Folder with >1000 subfolders [with some duplications]. My Kant folder has 4300 files in 200 subfolders which signify the high weightage I placed on Kantianism.

See the other thread. You know the one.... The one where we were checking your ability to read and it hasn't gone well for you.

The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is. Again, this is another of your boasts that makes no sense to anyone else, and it's not coincidental that what you boast of is a pointless excess of organisation and sorting.

So, which are the philosophers and their ideas you align with the most with its relevant weightages [note the useful of weightages you condemned]?
If you have a 'Philosophy' folder in your hard-disk you may be able to infer from there.

Of course I don't have such a fodler. If you think I am going to make up numbers for weighting Adam Smith against John Stuart Mill you must have lost your goddamn mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact that this notion makes sense to you is why you will never understand.

But go on then. You give me a definitive (intelligible) list of all the ideas of western philosophy since 800 BCE and let's see how that goes.

Here it is, the ideas as related to the list of philosophers;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ilosophers
If you have read widely you would have understand what each of the majority of philosopher's ideas are.

That's not a list of ideas, it's a list of philosophers. Frege only gets described as "Influential analytic philosopher"
It doesn't even list Berlin. It's not what you were offering, you have tried a bait and switch on me.

One of the first book I read of Western Philosophy was Russell's
History of Western Philosophy.

So far, I have >18,000 files [books, articles and notes] in my Philosophy Folder with >1000 subfolders [with some duplications]. My Kant folder has 4300 files in 200 subfolders which signify the high weightage I placed on Kantianism.

See the other thread. You know the one.... The one where we were checking your ability to read and it hasn't gone well for you.

The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is. Again, this is another of your boasts that makes no sense to anyone else, and it's not coincidental that what you boast of is a pointless excess of organisation and sorting.

So, which are the philosophers and their ideas you align with the most with its relevant weightages [note the useful of weightages you condemned]?
If you have a 'Philosophy' folder in your hard-disk you may be able to infer from there.

Of course I don't have such a fodler. If you think I am going to make up numbers for weighting Adam Smith against John Stuart Mill you must have lost your goddamn mind.

It seems your best moves is to complain about nothing.

If you have read enough philosophical books you would have noted in some there is a long list of references and this is not a sign of boasting.

I believe in a philosophy forum it is effective to know what others have read which will facilitate a smoother discussion.
This is why I need to know your philosophical stance in detail but you are such a coward in revealing all your moves to avoid being 'checkmate'.

Berlin??

Berlin did not enjoy writing, and his published work (including both his essays and books) was produced through dictation to a tape-recorder, or by the transcription of his improvised lectures and talks from recorded tapes.
-WIKI

Perhaps the above is the reason he was not listed.
It is likely he is a second tier or grade philosopher with no novel ideas.