Ludwig Wittgenstein

Laplandman

OK, possibly some people have taken the time to read some of Ludwig Wittgenstein's early work the 'Tractatus Logico Philosophicus'.
Its interpretation became quite a contentious issue in the twentieth century, with some emphasising the works affinity with logical atomism, others placing more emphasis on the mystical character of the work, and still others seeing it as constitutive of a wider Wittgensteinian project of 'therapeutic' philosophy.

In any case, most accounts would have it that upon completion of the Tractatus, (the gestation of which compassed the conflict of WW1), Wittgenstein retired from philosophical concerns, believing in fact that with the completion of his work all philosophical problems had been exposed as meaningless.
Of course he returned, and spent some time in Ireland in his later years, but the Tractatus and its idiosyncratic character continued to perplex.

Does anyone have any strong opinions on it?
Are philosophical propositions meaningless?

I personally think its an error to maintain, as Wittgenstein does, that the world is composed of 'facts' and not things.

Playboy

Laplandman wrote:

I personally think its an error to maintain, as Wittgenstein does, that the world is composed of 'facts' and not things.

I don't think it is quite as simple as that but I would agree that I think his position with regards to Logical Atomism is probably wrong.

Laplandman

Forgive me, I have commited the heresy of paraphrase.

Rectification:

1.
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.

1.1
Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen, nicht der Dinge.

Translation:

1.
The world is all that is the case.

1.1
The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

I don't think it is quite as simple as that but I would agree that I think his position with regards to Logical Atomism is probably wrong.

What's not that simple? Surely it's all about simplicity in atomistic terms.

Don't you think Wittgenstein is in error?

Also, do you mean that Wittgenstein misrepresents atomism? Or do you disagree with what you take to be his atomism? Or neither?

Briony Noh

There's a question I wanted to ask. I can't believe no one has answered it since April. Is everyone at home working out the appropriate formulae or arguments?

Is philosophic thought pointless?

If it is, is it because Wittgenstein was such a clever clogs (stop me if I get too technical) that he reduced all questions to one answer, or because we have run out of room on the planet for people other than those for whom survival, reproduction and mindless entertainment are enough?

Which brings me back to my opening paragraph and the answer to my question. Clearly, the original issues raised by this thread aren't important enough to merit response. Which could mean Wittgenstein is right or it could mean I am right. (Yes, I'm so smug, I compare myself with one of the last centuries greatest thinking celebrities - :Dthinking celebrity!:D Who ever expected to see those two words in the same sentence again since the death of Peter Ustinov?)

Do campuses no longer resound with declarations of insecure dogma and passive excursions to intellectual thought on a Friday night? Is Big Brother really that much more important?