
Wittgenstein and emoji - theaeolist
https://qz.com/1261293/ludwig-wittgenstein-was-the-great-philosopher-of-the-20th-century-he-also-invented-the-emoji/
======
ghotli
For some reason, one of my favourite paragraphs on the internet is from the
Wittgenstein wikipedia page.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#1953:_Publ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#1953:_Publication_of_the_Philosophical_Investigations)

\---

According to Wittgenstein, philosophical problems arise when language is
forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the
familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He
describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice:
where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and
logically perfect language, all philosophical problems can be solved without
the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the
lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all.[219] Wittgenstein
argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the
"rough ground" of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations
consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that
philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: "the clarity we are
aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the
philosophical problems should completely disappear."

~~~
empath75
Makes me think of Haskell for some reason.

~~~
ghotli
Honestly I'd say that's a reasonable comparison.

------
OrganicMSG
This part - “ Horwich says Wittgenstein imagined everyone sketching individual
faces to convey meaning, rather than relying on standardized faces as we do
today. “I don’t think we get the variety and the flexibility unless you’re
drawing them yourself,” says Horwich. “You’re shoveling ‘sad’ into one
particular face. [Wittgenstein’s] idea was different degrees and shades of
sadness come from ways of drawing it.” ” - made me wonder if we could do with
parametric smileys.

edit - just thought, making parametric smileys is somewhat linked to the
fictional technology for expression that Juanita worked on in Snowcrash.

~~~
evincarofautumn
This is why I don’t like when emoticons are automatically replaced with emoji
or graphical emoticons. If I had wanted a standard face I’d’ve used one! It’s
definitely a hack, but you can illustrate a lot of nuance with textual
emoticons/kaomoji that you don’t get from standardised emoji. Unfortunately,
emoticons also suffer because systems weren’t designed for them—for example, I
use :P in a _sans-serif_ typeface to express exasperation, irony, “oh come
on”, that kind of thing, but in a _serif_ typeface it looks like it’s smiling,
which changes the tone completely—and sadly, this has become the standard way
of rendering it as an emoji. If there were an easy way to embed small images
in digital “plain text” we could do this kind of inline illustration with much
more reliable conveyance of tone & intent.

~~~
OrganicMSG
Presumably one could simply work out the required degrees of freedom for eyes
nose and mouth and assign each one a float and make something workable with
metafont. I may put some time aside to have a play with this.

------
danharaj
"1 Except perhaps Wittgenstein, an inspired guy, in the work of which
everything can be found, but - like Nostradamus - only _afterwards_ "

The Blind Spot, Lectures on Logic, footnote p. 141

~~~
sofieapp
I studied Wittgenstein in college, and with enough pot and an undergraduate
mind this statement is generally true.

However, I think in this case, Wittgenstein did spell out an early version of
the emoticon - emoji maybe a little far. I know my version of the text this is
sourced from had emoticon like drawings next to the statement that's quoted in
OP's article, but I don't recall if these were added by Wittgenstein or a
later editor.

~~~
jjgreen
They were Wittgenstein's, the "Letters to C. K. Ogden with Comments on the
English Translation of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" includes detailed
notes on their typographic treatment.

------
tlb
The meanings of emotion words seem to drift over time. Consider gay, nice,
silly, amazed, naughty, enthusiastic. They can mislead people reading older
books. I wonder if the meaning of emoji will drift more or less over time.

~~~
Retra
Probably, but the meaning hits such a wide target, it will probably take
longer for the original meaning to be lost through normal usage. There could
be dramatic shifts if people start using specific emoji to carry highly
idiomatic meaning.

~~~
tlb
To pick the one they used in the article (:nerd-face:), it has buck teeth and
glasses. Buck teeth and glasses may be virtually unknown in 100 years, due to
lasik surgery and orthodontics. That symbol might suggest retro-hipster. Thus,
my theory the meaning of emoji might drift less over time than words is a
:pile of poo:.

------
dang
Ok you guys, we've taken "invented" out above. Step away from the title now
please.

~~~
witgitstein
Without "Wittgenstein invented emojis" all we are left with is an article
about ol' Ludwig W. talking over-excitedly about smiley faces.

That is to say, the article used clickbait to bolster an otherwise uninspired
article.

------
bitL
C'mon, do a better research! Emojis were spotted in middle-age Latin texts in
Europe already... Probably nobody cared about claiming copyright back then and
I assume educated monks back then were as curious and creative as anyone.

------
labster
I thought Forrest Gump invented emoji, but I guess there's always prior art.

------
dvt
Never really liked Wittgenstein. He's often misunderstood by wannabe logicians
(people that don't actually want to do, you know, _proofs_ ) and (imo) didn't
really contribute that much to logic or philosophy of language. Much more
important logicians are brushed over (Łukasiewicz, for one; Gödel, for
another) when Wittgenstein is taught for entire semesters.

Arguing that he "invented" the emoji when we have entire civilizations that
used pictorial forms of communication (uh, ancient Egypt?) seems just
straight-up wrong.

~~~
yarrel
Wittgenstein's achievements are unparalleled in twentieth century philosophy.

Who else in that period can say that they comprehensively ruined the
discipline twice?

~~~
neonate
Early and late Heidegger are about that different. I don't know about ruinous.

