
Ludwig Wittgenstein - human_v2
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/wittgenstein.html
======
joecode
My college abstract algebra professor, who was fond of grilling us in class,
once asked me to define an "isomorphism". I said something to the effect that
an isomorphism is when you have two structures that though technically
different, share an essential similarity. To which he quipped "that's the Time
Magazine definition of an isomorphism, I want you to tell me how you really
define it, mathematically."

This article, I submit, is the Time Magazine definition of Ludwig
Wittgenstein. Read at your own peril.

(Peter Hacker is the only academic I know who really seems to get
Wittgenstein. You're probably best off ignoring the secondary sources on
Wittgenstein altogether, but if you must, I recommend you read Hacker---please
not Daniel Dennet.)

~~~
cchooper
I'll second Hacker and recommend his _Wittgenstein's Place in 20th Century
Analytic Philsophy_ as a reasonably accessible starting point.

------
kurtosis
This recent new yorker article gives some interesting background on
wittgenstein's extremely neurotic (and intersting, of course) family.
Apparently three of his four brothers committed suicide, as did one of his
sister's husband. I personally didn't understand his books - I guess a lot of
what was revolutionary in his ideas (language games?) had already been
absorbed and taken for granted by the time I was born.

[http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/04/06/09040...](http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/04/06/090406crbo_books_gottlieb)

~~~
coolestuk
I don't think that Wittgenstein's observations on "language games" has been
absorbed and taken for granted. His interest in games was part of his
exposition of the nature of universals (forms, essences). Considering that for
at least 25 years students in the humanities (social sciences, media studies,
literary studies) have been force-fed a simplistic 'anti-essentialism' as a
political doctrine, I'd say that's proof that Wittgenstein's work is almost
completely unknown outside of Philosophy Departments.

Sadly most of philosophy is unknown outside those walls. Ludwig may not have
found that so sad - he saw philosophy as a kind of mental disability, and
himself as the doctor.

Probably the best introduction to Wittgenstein is Janik and Toulmin's
"Wittgenstein's Vienna". Even if one decides that philosophy is a fly in a
bottle, there's fascinating stuff in that book on forgotten greats like Karl
Kraus.

------
patrickgzill
Spam from me (I know the author of this book) about a recent book on LW:

[http://www.amazon.com/Wittgenstein-Flies-Kite-Story-
Models/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Wittgenstein-Flies-Kite-Story-
Models/dp/0131499971)

------
intellectronica
Daniel Dennett, himself a contemporary caricature of a philosopher, opens by
asking whether a philosopher would be happier to become so successful as to
strike down philosophy completely, or rather to become popular and read
forever. Wittgenstein, says Dennet, aimed for the former, but achieved the
latter.

To my mind, though, Wittgenstein did, in fact, succeeded in shooting down
philosophy as we knew it. He did so by demonstrating with his own unique story
and bizarre writing that (if to paraphrase Clemenceau) philosophy is far too
important to be left to the philosophers. Wittgenstein's generation was the
first one in which Philosophy as an academic and literary endeavour has
contributed virtually nothing to our understanding of the world.

~~~
jollojou
I disagree with you. Wittgenstein's generation of philosophers did contribute
something crucial to the twentieth century thought. At least Karl Popper
(1902-1994) should be mentioned in this context. His arguments against the
political philosophies that emphasise metaphysics are traces of the world that
resulted in communism and fascism.

The German philosophers before Wittgenstein (Hegel especially) created a
philosophical atmosphere in which it was acceptable to create large
metaphysical constructions such as the proletarian state or the third Reich.
Popper among the other liberal thinkers devoted significant part of their
academic work to show that communism and fascism were founded on metaphysical
constructions that could not deliver the dream they promised.

~~~
intellectronica
You are right about Popper (other commentators mention him too), but he's the
exception

------
jamesbressi
I don't think I agree with the author of this TIMES article. I think a
philosopher deep down inside definitely wants to be right over read.

~~~
bmj
Isn't that the point he was trying to make? Most philosophers want to be read
over and over. Wittgenstein was less concerned with his legacy of writings
(only the Tractatus was published during his lifetime, and that was little
more than his journal) and more concerned with solving problems.

------
Create
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. -- Wittgenstein

------
chunkyslink
time.com - a good example of a badly put together website.

It looks awful and finding stuff is virtually impossible. How wide exactly is
that text column where I am supposed to read from ? 300px ?

<shudder>

------
mattlanger
This just in: Daniel Dennett cites Ludwig Wittgenstein as one of the 100 most
important people of the century. And coming up later on the 11:00 news:
Heisenberg admits, "I never could have done it without Bohr."

~~~
CytokineStorm
Actually, I would say that Dennett's philosophy owes far more to Alan Turing
than Wittgenstein, which is why I was surprised that he suggests that
Wittgenstein's legacy may prove more valuable than Turing's. Pretty high
praise considering Turing gave us the theoretical basis for computers.

------
xenophanes
Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein>

> His severe disciplinary methods (often involving corporal punishment, not
> unusual at the time)—as well as a general suspicion amongst the villagers
> that he was somewhat mad—led to a long series of bitter disagreements with
> some of his students' parents, and eventually culminated in April 1926 in
> the collapse of an eleven-year-old boy whom Wittgenstein had struck on the
> head.[29] The boy's father attempted to have Wittgenstein arrested, and
> despite being cleared of misconduct, he resigned his position and returned
> to Vienna, feeling that he had failed as a school teacher.

But Wittgenstein was a much worse philosopher. He wrote, for example,
confusing/obscure attacks on the value of philosophy itself. Not having any
philosophical problems one is interested in or finds fruitful is completely
understandable. And of course a person in that situation won't make any useful
contributions to solving philosophical problems. The weird thing is why he's
considered a philosopher, let alone a good one, by anyone.

~~~
wynand
> Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head:

That old bugbear - horrible as he might have been in person, his philosophy is
distinct from this side of him. We might as well insinuate that Feynmann's
work is worthless because he was a womanizer.

> Not having any philosophical problems one is interested in or finds fruitful
> is completely understandable

How is reasoning about the problems of philosophy itself not an interesting
philosophical problem? You are entitled to your own opinion, but when you
slate someone who was considered by other big philosophers as a giant, you
need to make a stronger point than that.

~~~
xenophanes
Whether "reasoning about the problems of philosophy" is interesting depends on
what you think they are, and whether you manage to come up with any useful
answers.

What sort of stronger point do you want? I have an explanation of what
Wittgenstein was (a person without philosophical problems) which accounts for
all evidence of Wittgenstein known to me. I think it can account for
everything you know about Wittgenstein too, if you think about it.

Did you want me to pick several examples -- which you can then accuse of being
cherry picked -- and show how it fits? And I should do this in addition to
offering my general explanation, even though you've offered neither an
explanation of Witt nor brought up any examples for or against mine?

