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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think I remember this refrain from a history textbook somewhere, perhaps. Maybe it is a common view, but I have never seen it supported. To begin with, it would be necessary to show precisely what previous philosophy had done to contribute to "understanding of our world". That very phrase, which is being wielded so causally to criticize analytic philosophy, is precisely the sort of idea that analytic philosophy would handle much more carefully...
To my mind, Wittgenstein's work is actually incredibly helpful, because it helps clear up deep linguistic confusions... confusions that have inhibited real progress in philosophy.
Feynman has a philosophy book (_The Meaning of It All_) which is excellent. He discussed philosophy of science frequently in his books and lectures, and sometimes other types of philosophy, e.g. educational philosophy.
Feynman is not noted as a philosopher, which perhaps proves the point that people are looking for the wrong thing in a philosopher.
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.
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."
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.
Dennett didn't choose who was in the Time 100. Dennett was just asked to write the article. But even if Dennett was Wittgenstein's BFF, then that detracts nothing from the content of the article, to which your comment is entirely irrelevant.
> 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.
> 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.
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?
I didn't say his character was relevant to his philosophy. I do think it's notable. Just like, say, Bertrand Russel's attitude to nuclear disarmament was notable. Is it relevant to whether his philosophy is true? Of course not. But should we forget about it and never mention it? No again.
As to Tractatus, if you want to discuss it more can you give a quote from the book that you consider to have value? Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?
I also heard that Bertrand Russell exhorted the post-war US and UK governments to launch pre-emptive strikes on the USSR before they got nuclear weapons. It makes for quite a contrast with his later pacifist stance.
You could say about anything "show me one place where x has value". In such a position, you'd always be able to dispute any point raised.
If you really believe that there is nothing of value in the Tractatus, then you should give a short summary of what you think it is about and why you don't think it has any value.
With such a summary, it's possible to have a debate, since your assertions can be challenged.
I think the problem is that wynand didn't make the original reply to you, he just inserted himself into the debate without saying anything substantial.
I give you a pass on ad hominem in this case because it's not a logical fallacy, it's appropriate.
Ad hominem is not automatically a logical fallacy. I think it's important to note that there was something seriously off about Wittgeinstein's character.
I don't like how this has been downvoted. It feels like people are disagreeing with the poster's point by giving him or her downvotes. That's not the point of the voting system, I'd say.
rms - though I see what you're saying, in this case I disagree with the statement because much of Wittgenstein's work concerned logic and I don't feel the negative aspects of his character affected the quality of it.
(it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with a posters point by downvoting or upvoting. If it wouldn't ruin some of the site's simplicity it would make sense to have a 4 way arrow for agree/disagree and good/bad, but the system we have works well enough)
Yes, his character didn't impact his philosophical work, at least not for the purposes of us evaluating the text. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with people like him being listed on a list of great/influential people. Maybe his character flaw is enough to necessitate an asterisk next to his name on lists like this.
I would compare Wittgenstein's legacy to Fritz Haber -- a great man, inarguably greater than Wittgenstein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber However, the same scientific discovery of his that averted a Malthusian catastrophe also led to Haber becoming the "father of chemical warfare."
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.)