Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 1

#The Tractatus

The section on the Tractatus needs major editing. We need a presentable way of numbering Wittgenstein's propositions. Also, there are topic-placeholders in quotation marks ("") that need to be filled in. Moreover, when we are quoting Wittgenstein, do we want his remarks in quotation marks, or italicized? Wikiwikifast 02:11, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Linz School photo

I'm curious about this sentence:

There is evidence, however, that both appeared simultaneously in a school photograph of all the students.

Is there evidence that this photo exists, or is the photo itself evidence that both appeared simultaneously? — Matt 11:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Click here for photo on book cover. --JimWae 10:28, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Does anyone know how many students were in the school? ...in the full photo? I think that could help answer the Q of whether or not they even knew of each other.--JimWae 18:04, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

At http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History/Cornish1.html Cornish gives a list of 17 Jewish students at the school in 1903

http://www.ok-centrum.at/english/ausstellungen/open_house/blum_michael.html has nearly the whole photo with 40 kids & 1 adult male - possibly a few more kids cut out--JimWae 03:46, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Other

I didn't see it anywhere, but is it mentioned that ol' Ludwig was slightly authistic? He walked sideways, you know.. :D Sigg3.net 11:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

How do you spell Tractatus? Could someone change the spelling to consistency to whichever is the proper (Tracatus|Tractatus), whichever it is; I am not an expert, though I suspect it is Tractatus.

You're right - its Tractatus, not Tracatus. -Seth Mahoney 05:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

On Certainty

I am not sure this is appropriate but at least it's helpful: there is an online html version of L.W.'s "On Certainty", only the English version though.

http://budni.by.ru/oncertainty.html

Philosophical Investigations

Undeniably the most radical difference between the "earlier" and the "later" Wittgenstein is his view of the task of philosophy. In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein adopted the "conventional" view of philosophy that had been accepted by almost every Western philosopher since Plato: the philosopher's task was to solve a small number of seemingly intractable problems via logical analysis (for example, the problem of "free will", "is there a God?", what is "the good" or "the beautiful" and so on). By the time of the Investigations however, his view had changed radically. He now argued that these "problems" were in fact pseudo-problems that arose from philosopher's misuse of language.

This is almost certainly false: it not only involves a grave misunderstanding of the conception of philosophy in the Tractatus, but indeed flies in the face of the clear text of the book. On all accounts, there is a considerable continuity on this point between the early and the late Wittgenstein:

4.003 Most propositions, that have been written about philosophical matters, are not false, but senseless. We cannot, therefore, answer questions of this kind at all, but only state their senselessness. Most questions and propositions of the philosophers result from the fact that we do not understand the logic of our language.

(They are of the same kind as the question whether the Good is more or less identical than the Beautiful.)

And so it is not to be wondered at that the deepest problems are really no problems.

4.112 The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts.

Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.

A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations.

The result of philosophy is not a number of "philosophical propositions", but to make propositions clear.

Philosophy should make clear and delimit sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred.

6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other--he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--but it would be the only strictly correct method.

I am going to see if I can do something to revise the section tonight. If I'm not able to, though, I'd urge someone to edit the passage as soon as possible...

Terms like 'undeniably…' are used to hide things that the author is not too sure about. Yes. The paragraph needs editing. There is remarkably little to distinguish the two Wittgensteins, apart from his noticing that there were other things we could do with words besides make statements. Getting a grasp of what those things are is the subject of the investigations. I've found writing about Wittgenstein remarkably difficult, so I'll wait for your edits. Banno 02:55, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I attempted a rephrasing, see if it works for you folks. Autrijus 15:41, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

References

This is a great article, but I feel it needs some inline references. There are many claims which do need to be referenced. Just pulling out two as examples: (a) that Frege was the greatest logician since Aristotle and (b) that Wittgenstein and Turing argued about issues. Are the main editors who wrote this article able to supply references? Slim 04:40, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Slim--well. That Frege was the greatest logician since Aristotle is of course a matter of a judgment call about the history of philosophy and not a simple report. You will find claims of the sort in some histories of philosophy. But it does strike me as overly broad and not really contributing to the article. Perhaps it should go?

As for (b), Wittgenstein's and Turing's encounters over the philosophy of mathematics are recorded by Witt.'s students notes on his 1939 lectures on the foundations of mathematics, which have been redacted and published as Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics (ISBN 0226904261 ). It is also mentioned in several biographies of Witt. (e.g. Duty of Genius). This is alluded to in the article already, but I suppose that the exact source and time could be made more explicit.

Thanks for your comments. I am sure that they will make the article better. Are there other points at which you think an explicit reference is important? Radgeek 14:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would say it needs references everywhere, to be honest, though I know that's a lot of work. I'm thinking of Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verification. I think it's a great article but I'm surprised it got featured article status without references. I had an article of mine on Bernard Williams accepted for featured article status and I had several objections because of my small number of references.

The thing about Wikipedia is that it's not about truth; it's about what's verifiable. So, for example, the judgment call about Frege being the greatest logician since Aristotle: that sort of claim just isn't allowed in an encylopedia without a reputable reference (and, as it's such a broad, sweeping statement, the reference would have to be very reputable indeed). In my Williams piece, I wrote that, prior to Williams, utilitarianism and Kant were the two dominant approaches in moral philosophy, which to me was so obviously true that it didn't require a reference. However, the featured article judges wouldn't let me keep that statement in without a reference — and rightly so, even though it was irritating to have to source everything. I would say that particularly articles about academic subjects should be written more as though they are academic papers, with everything fully referenced throughout. Slim 22:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

The article does say arguably -- and the Frege article says widely regarded as -- so they are not bald "statements as fact". I do not know if anyone would have written a paper on who IS the greatest since..., but arguably conveys that there are reasons (not appropriate in an LW article to give), though some might disagree. Perhaps the thing to do is to strengthen the claim in the Frege article. --JimWae 22:39, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I think you missed my point. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. Whatever the statement says — that Frege IS the greatest logician, that Frege is ARGUABLY the greatest logician, or that Frege is not a logician at all — it has to be referenced. If he is arguably the greatest, the editor should say in brackets who has argued this e.g. (X, 1972). Wikipedia editors are not meant to insert their own opinions into articles, and this article contains quite a lot of unattributed claims and opinions. It's the issue of attribution I'm pointing to, not whether the claims are true, false or can correctly be said to be arguable. Slim 00:15, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Slim, I got it; I guess it just does not bother me as much. I doubt there'd be a reputable article that argues he is the best since Aristotle, though, don't you? -- or even an article that argues he is important --

• one of the more important logicians since Aristotle
• considered in academic circles to have made some of the most/more important contributions to logic since Aristotle (this seems too tedious, no?)
• those in the field of logic consider his contributions of some importance?
• I take arguably to mean: a statement open to dispute but that could be defended in an argument -- only slightly a weasel word. Anyway, I am sure someone will fix it up -- hope it doesn't become too plain, though.--JimWae 00:23, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I know it's tedious, having to source everything, but I feel it's a good habit to get into, because so much of what we feel we know is, upon reflection, POV, and being forced to hunt down references does make editors stop and think before they put in any contentious claim or personal opinion. I'm going through an interesting experience with this issue myself at the moment with a piece I wrote called Rat Park. It's an almost forgotten psychology experiment that questions the accepted notion of drug addiction. The experiment went very much against the grain of current thinking, and was therefore largely ignored by other scientists — not criticized, just ignored. But I can't make my article NPOV without including criticism of the experiment. I also can't say it was ignored, because that suggests a deliberate stance. I have to say there was no follow-up, but before I can say that, I am literally having to hunt down every possible scientist who might know whether an obscure response may, in fact, have appeared somewhere. I put the article up for featured article status, so I'm having to do this, because my first draft was howled down by objections saying it only gave the one side of the debate. It's infuriating, but I do see their point.

I think I'll remove the Frege remark if you don't mind. It's not connected to W. anyway. Slim 01:25, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing. Will you have to source..

who had in the preceding decades laid the foundations of modern logic and logical mathematics.

too?--JimWae 01:44, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question. Not every claim can be sourced (try finding a source for the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow), and we also don't want articles with sources for every single sentence.

Anything that you feel might be challenged should be sourced; and anything that is challenged must be sourced or removed. Anything contentious should be sourced so the readers can check its veracity; and anything that is very enlightening or informative should also be sourced (even if not contentious) so that the readers can read more about it, if they want to. Personally, I would source the claim that Frege laid the foundations of modern logic, but I can see that others would object and say that was going too far. So it's up to you. Slim 01:54, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

What's missing from the article?

Perhaps

• was it not W who developed the truth tables?
• discussion of how, when & why W abandoned the picture theory
  • Wittgenstein had already given an account of how he became disillusioned with the picture theory: Sraffa, an Italian economist friend, made a Neapolitan gesture, brushing the underneath of his chin with an outward sweep of the finger-tips of one hand. He asked Wittgenstein: "What is the grammar of that?" This, according to Wittgenstein, broke the hold on him of the conception that a proposition must literally be a picture of the reality it describes.
  • Click [1] for more of article excerpted above

--JimWae 06:01, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Photo

I tagged Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg as fairuse old, though I would have been within policy in deleting it from the unresolved listing on WP:PUI. Removal of the template noting it as a problem listed image without resolving the source or comment on WP:PUI was inappropriate. If someone has more info on the image, please add it to the image page. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 17:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've just done a light copy edit of the intro, as it didn't seem to flow well, so I've tried to fix that. I also moved the photograph, as the convention in publishing is that faces shouldn't look away from the text. Readers' eyes are believed to be drawn to where the face is looking: so faces looking to the left should be placed on the right of the page and vice versa. Feel free to move it back if you don't like it. SlimVirgin 06:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation

Can somebody add the pronunciation of his name to the head of the atricle?

Done. Could probably be improved, though. --Goethean 13:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone has removed it. Is there a reason for this? --Mosesroth

I didn't remove it, but the style guide says pronunciation should be shown in IPA. The current one makes sense to some English speakers (but not all). --Andrew Norman 17:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a pronunciation guide is necessary (German pronunciation is pretty straightforward), but the one I've added is what the Wiki article says the IPA equivalent is.

--Andrew Norman 16:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

His influence

Goethean, I reverted your addition of in the English-speaking world to the sentence "he is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century." Do you feel that e.g. German philosophers don't regard him as influential? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm not aware of his influence being limited to the English-speaking world. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I don't own any Habermas, but I doubt that he (for example) refers to Wittgenstein much if at all. --goethean 21:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I meant to type is: I don't own any Habermas, but I'll look it up when I go to the library. --goethean 21:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from memory, I believe Habermas does rely on Wittgenstein. Is the distinction you're making between continental and analytic philosophy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am aware that there has been a merging of analytic and continental in the last decade or so, but I don't think that it has been so strong that any continental philosopher would grant that Wittgenstein is the most important philosopher of the 20th century. --goethean 21:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link ("Continental European philosophers, on the other hand, hardly have taken any notice of Wittgenstein's work. Those who studied it were a handful of logicians or positivists, exclusively interested in the fields of Logic and Epistemology."), but it appears to be someone's personal website. --goethean 21:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a legitimate paper. The sentence doesn't say W's the most important philosopher of the 20th century, but that he's widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. I tend to dislike these general statements, though of W it seems fair to me, but it's certainly true that his impact was largely on analytical philosophy. I'm going to ask Mel Etitis for his opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well they're probably old pals. --goethean 22:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, Mel's an Oxford man; Wittgenstein was Cambridge. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I understood that especially Philosophical Investigations had a pretty strong influence on the continental tradition, especially as it developed in the US. -Seth Mahoney 23:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Many modern phenomenologists rate Wittgenstein very highly, and he's influential in philosophy of science. FWIW, he was the only person included in the List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century for his philosophical work. --- Charles Stewart 11:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethean's claim here is a surprising one, especially given that Wittgenstein is frequently cited as an example (the example?) of a philosopher who is claimed by both sides of the Anglo-American–Continental divide (though on the latter side, it's fair to say only really by the German-speaking world — but see the last citation below). On the other hand, though I know little of Habermas, I've never seen him referred to as being particularly influenced by Wittgenstein, and I can't find any references to that. A (very) quick Google threw up a course on continental philosophy that spends three weeks on Wittgenstein, sandwiched between Arendt & Gadamer [2], and the same lecturer's The Notebook for Contemporary Continental Philosophy, which again clearly places Wittgenstein in the continental tradition, another course placing Wittgenstein in that tradition [3], a Google-cached piece on Stanley Cavell that does the same ("Cavell is a philosopher, one of the few within the analytic tradition (if we still regard both Austin and Wittgenstein as somehow part of that tradition)" [4], and Simon Glendinning (an old colleague of mine) definitely places Wittgenstein in the continental tradition [5]. Surprisingly (for me, anyway), Duncan J. Richter writes:" Similarities between Wittgenstein's work and that of Derrida are now generating interest among continental philosophers" [6]. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Philosophical Gourmet agrees with my "surpring claim". --goethean 15:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Analytic" philosophy today names a style of doing philosophy, not a philosophical program or a set of substantive views. Analytic philosophers, crudely speaking, aim for argumentative clarity and precision; draw freely on the tools of logic; and often identify, professionally and intellectually, more closely with the sciences and mathematics, than with the humanities. (It is fair to say that "clarity" is, regrettably, becoming less and less a distinguishing feature of "analytic" philosophy.) The foundational figures of this tradition are philosophers like Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, the young Ludwig Wittgenstein and G.E. Moore; other canonical figures include Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Kripke, Rawls, Dummett, and Strawson. [3]