h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: What Wittgenstein tells us; a one-page guide - A963579
Author: Recumbentman - U208656

Wittgenstein, you will notice, is my philosophical hero.

g'day recumbentman,

i read this and found it very interesting.

I'm not quite sure about the title, but i love the text.

all the best with this in PR.

my one reservation is that it is clearly a summary of a considerable amount of philosophical theory and explanation.

But in fact, i'd say more a case for congratulation than query... you do very well in making your subject approachable, imo.

cya
spiff

Thanks Spiff!

Yeah, what do you put for a title? A lot of people have heard about LW, but a lot more haven't, and I made it as short as I could for someone who had heard of him but didn't know what he was on about.

My dearest wish would be that it would make some sense to someone who has no philosophical background at all. I know this is a distant hope; the first time I read the "Philosophical Investigations" I said "yes, but why? What is the problem?" -- and I was already studying philosophy!

Perhaps some central image from my page will remain with the casual reader and s/he'll come back for another look.

Over ten years ago I asked for a book about LW in a bookshop. The salesperson had never heard of him, and was gobsmacked to find there were as many pages in the catalogue devoted to books about him as there were to books about Joyce!

I was interested to read about Wittgenstein but was disappointed by your article. Please accept my comments below as suggestions which may help to improve your presentation on this important philosopher.

Starting with the general appearance...

Title. Too long; Perhaps 'An introduction to W' or 'A Short Guide to W's Ideas' or something like that. By the way, when I printed it out it covered 2 pages, so 'a one-page guide' it was not.

Headings. Too big; perhaps you could use a smaller font. Also I think numbers or even just bullet points would be better than letters.

Comments on the quoted ideas. It would read more easily if there was a comment, however short, after each of the ideas presented.

Content of the Article...

Paragraph 1: Surely it cannot be correct to say that anybody (or even any Body) has 'solved all the problems of philosophy'. I doubt that it will ever be possible to make such a statement. We'd be left with nothing to talk about except football, soap operas and unusual methods of personal transportation. Perhaps W 'proposed solutions to many of the problems of P' or 'identified some of the chief problems of modern P' or something like that. I don't know, because I haven't studied his work, but I am sure there is a more credible way of summarising his achievements.

Paragraph 2: I think it would be good to give the name of his book and perhaps to mention that he was a protege of Bertrand Russell.

Paragraph 3: Confusing. After all, if he had solved all the problems of philosophy by 1922 but then did a u-turn when he resumed his career, where does that leave us? Are the concepts which you go on to present to the reader based on his earlier work or his later work? Are they generally recognised as his most important insights or your own favourites?

Moving on to the 'pointers' you list, the first thing that struck me was that they are more like rules of grammar or mathematical conventions rather than philosophical insights. Was this his achievement? To define or improve the method of discussing philosophy in order to achieve clarity?

As I said above, I have not studied his work, but it seems to me that it does not take a great philosopher to realise that we must be careful about the words we use if we are to discuss anything meaningfully and if we are to exchange ideas accurately. Items (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) seem to cover this concept.

Item (e) and (g) do not make sense to me and the notes which follow do not help. Could you explain these more clearly?

The final quotation made more sense to me than all the rest put together. I would paraphrase as follows "Our normal use of language is unsuited to the understanding of philosophy because of its lack of precision and consistency."

I'm probably spouting rubbish but I would be grateful to have your observations on what I have written.

Regards

John Luke

Thank you John Luke; it is terrific to get thoughtful responses.

Sorry about the two pages; I originally wrote this for a friend, and managed to print it on one page. Must have used a small font. And no doubt it's grown, I can never leave anything alone.

Title. Too long? -- Yes probably. I must have been infected by people's choice of nicknames. How about 'Wittgenstein bottled'?

'Headings. Too big; perhaps you could use a smaller font. Also I think numbers or even just bullet points would be better than letters.' -- Well I wanted to have the main points standing out, easy-view style. In alabaster subheaders would be perfect, but in Brunel they are indistinguishable from headers (to me) and in goo they are insdistinguihable from text. Also it is necessary to have (a), (b) etc as I need to refer back twice to (b). I would love to change the font size but can you?

'It would read more easily if there was a comment, however short, after each of the ideas presented.' -- I don't think that's a good enough reason, I have really nothing to say. 'No symbols where none intended' is Sam Beckett's rule.

'Surely it cannot be correct to say that anybody (or even any Body) has 'solved all the problems of philosophy'.' -- Ah but snappiness is the intention. Grab the attention. There _is_ an answer, and it is 42.

'I think it would be good to give the name of his book and perhaps to mention that he was a protege of Bertrand Russell.' -- Well you touch on two sore points there. He quickly grew to disagree violently with Russell, became a thorn in R's side for the rest of his life. Russell helped get the book published, and gave it its current name. W's name for it had been 'Philoshophy treated logically' (in German), but it was published in English as 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'. This reflects Russell's admiration for Spinoza who had published a 'Tractatus Theologico-Politicus' in the 17th century. W didn't share R's enthusiasm for S, but didn't care what the book was called.

'Confusing. After all, if he had solved all the problems of philosophy by 1922 but then did a u-turn when he resumed his career, where does that leave us?' -- I have shown this page(s) to a philosophy lecturer and he made the same criticism, that I jumble the early and later stuff together. It is indeed a set of favourites, or hopefully a synthesis of what W was pushing for all his life. Of course he u-turned, and contradicted his early pretensions; I say as much, and still I find him consistent in the important things, and that's what I want to bring across. I may not succeed of course.

'Moving on to the 'pointers' you list, the first thing that struck me was that they are more like rules of grammar or mathematical conventions rather than philosophical insights. Was this his achievement? To define or improve the method of discussing philosophy in order to achieve clarity?' -- Yes. I couldn't have put it better myself.

'Item (e) and (g) do not make sense to me and the notes which follow do not help. Could you explain these more clearly?' -- Sorry; best I can do. Paragraph (e) is very central: he says that rule-following is not a simple thing, in most human contexts it requires and rewards constant creativity. On (g) -- Wittgenstein hated philosophy! But he knew he was good at it and felt he had a duty to cure us of it.

'The final quotation made more sense to me than all the rest put together.' -- Good! Me too. Maybe I should leave out the rest and make the article consist of that quote.

'I would paraphrase as follows "Our normal use of language is unsuited to the understanding of philosophy because of its lack of precision and consistency."' -- Here I would disagree. The boot is on the other foot; increasing precision in order to talk about important things can result (and too often has) in defining yourself out of the context the real problem was in; most philosophy is solving non-problems. A pupil of Wittgenstein's, M C Drury, wrote a lovely book called 'The Danger of Words' (recently reprinted) where he lampoons this tendency as 'using words in Pickwickian senses'.

Sorry this is so long. Thanks for your questions.

Hello Recumbentman,

This is a very readable and brave stab at summarising the main tenets of Wittgenstein's philosophy. Though I'm aware that Wittgenstein wasn't really a fan of systematic philosophising, I don't think it can be avoided!

I had also thought that it might be worth distinguishing more clearly between Wittgenstein's earlier and later philosophy, but to treat this in too much depth would sort of go against your central aim, which is to get it across in one page.

However, I would agree with John Luke's comment about the first sentence. I don't think Wittgenstein did solve all the problems of philosophy and I think that a bold statement like this risks making readers doubt the validity of the rest of your article. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that he rejected the problems of philosophy as defined by philosophical tradition.

But that's not nearly as snappy is it?!



Natalie

I agree.

I did half my degree in philosophy, without looking at Wittgenstein (I took the politics / ethics route instead), but it's clear that he didn't solve all the problems of philosophy - or at least very few people think he did. I don't know enough about W to argue this, but I'm sure I could make a case if required

Otto

Greetings, Recumbentman.

OK. Taking your response point by point...

I think your article is about the right length for an introduction to the man and his ideas. Whether it's one page or two doesn't really matter.

I would favour a more formal title to the article such as 'An Introduction to...' or similar.

I tried out the appearance of 'SUBHEADING' in the three skins and it seemed OK to me. The points stood out well as paragraph titles. If you wanted more I suppose you could use some of the more esoteric formatting tags. They enable you to specify colour, font, size, etc. Full details in the Guide ML Clinic.

As a student of philosophy, *you* may find that the first two points are self-explanatory but your understanding and your use of language have already been developed. You are addressing the uninitiated and therefore I think you should hold their hands and lead them (and me too) to an appreciation of each point as it is delivered. Examples and counter-examples are helpful.

As Natalie suggested, you could actually put people off by coming on too strong in line one. If a movie, book or play is too hyped-up, people will be disappointed. I think your first paragraph should give a brief summary of his contribution to philosophy. This way, the points which you set out later will make more sense.

I take your point about him falling out with Russell but not about the book; it needs to be mentioned, by whatever name. In fact, if you are hoping to promote an interest in Herr W, it would be beneficial to give a list of relevant books.

Turning again to points (e) and (g); I am not happy! Imagine we are in the pub and you are trying to explain them to me. At first glance (e) seems like a smart-alec remark (but I'm sure it's not) while (g) seems like a flippant brush-off. As my teachers used to say ; "Must try harder".

Mankind seems to have an inbuilt curiosity about how the world in which they find themselves works, where it came from and what's it all about. We call it philosophy and I don't think it is an illness that we need to be cured of. May be that was a little joke from LW?

The ability to process information and to understand our world is based largely on our ability to talk. To understand more and better we need a bigger and better language, i.e. more names with more precise meanings. There will be potholes and pitfalls, wrong turns and cul-de-sacs, along the way but there doesn't seem to be any other road but language.

Well, I suppose that I could retire to the forest and contemplate my navel for a few years. That might enlighten me but I would still have to use language to communicate my vision to the rest of you. Back to square one!

I have just come across a book on Propositional Logic by Howard Pospesel. Is this related to W's ideas? I'm going to start reading it tonight.

Regards

John Luke

Hello -- I've just updated the article before reading your response (lost the conversation somehow; finally found it again).

I'm afraid I've made it worse!

I'll go back again later. It seems I'm doing a disservice to say he solved all the problems, though he did claim as much . . . I expected it would be understood in the same vein as "For every problem there is a solution that is simple, effective and utterly wrong". Silly me.

Berkeley aslo solved all philosophical problems in his day, and the most we can get from it now is a warning, not to trust excessively to our usage of words. Thank you Berkeley, it is a warning we consantly need.

Still that was the way I first heard of W from a fellow student, and it made an impression on me. You'd have to be there I suppose.

Hi Recumbentman

Putting <> in a subheader makes for dreaded horizontal scrolling on a 15" monitor, regardless of text size settings

The line sounds like a quote.
If it is, I'd suggest using
[The quote]

How about losing the (*) in favour of simply repeating the *uncomfortable statement*

I can't see a (b) so I'm at a loss whether or not it's verifiable

Re W solving *all the problems of philosophy* - this rang alarm bells immediately and almost put me off reading any further


Other than that, fascinating

six7s

Hi R.

The following quote, which I found at http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~witt/kintro.html
may be a better attention-grabbing device than a claim to have solved all the problems of philosophy.

"The single most influential analytic philosopher of the twentieth century, and indeed, the philosopher whom most analytic philosophers would regard as the greatest philosopher of the century, is Ludwig Wittgenstein"

John Luke

Thank you for your persistence, and I will take some more of your advice (I took some already and got myslf tangled -- well that's the way it works, we'll sort it out eventually, or ditch the project. Maybe this will cure me of my hero-worship). The "solved all" goes for sure.

John Luke -- just one thing for the moment -- "I don't think it is an illness that we need to be cured of. May be that was a little joke from LW?" -- Certainly not, I'd say; his first book was devoted to clarifying what we could sensibly talk about (facts) and what we couldn't (values) and showing that philosophy is an attempt to do the impossible. Later he softened this position, but he continued to regard most philosophy, at least all that was not linguistic analysis, as a criminal waste of effort.

"The ability to process information and to understand our world is based largely on our ability to talk. To understand more and better we need a bigger and better language, i.e. more names with more precise meanings. There will be potholes and pitfalls, wrong turns and cul-de-sacs, along the way but there doesn't seem to be any other road but language." -- His second philosophy was largely a critique of his first; in the first he wanted to 'clean up' language, but later he realised that he had no right to attempt this. He switched his focus to noticing how different language-games function, and respecting the common usage rather than presuming to 'improve' it.

Anyway -- back to the drawing board. It seems to me now that I would be better using more quotes and less of my own interpretations. something like your quote (thanks) would be more sober and less repulsive than my foolhardy inrush.

There now. Better Worse

Different

Looks fine to me! I'm probably the least to judge an entry on philosophy but I like it muchly

So, are the experts ready?


Bossel

Hello again Mgr Bossel! Thanks for sounding the trumpet re-awakening the thread!

Was it you who posted the thing months ago about the dangers of H2O? I've made good use of that. Ta

Just thought I'd better change the threadheader to match the revamped entry

Nice entry

Just a couple of points:

<>

This makes Wittgenstein's picture theory of meaning sound like a verificationist theory of meaning. It was subsequently interpreted as such by A.J. Ayer and his followers - but it is not portrayed as such in Wittgenstein's work. Verification is not the problem of the Tractatus - the possibility of truth in language is closer to the mark.

And - following on from this, it is not just the case that any proposition which cannot be true cannot be factual, it is more that any proposition which is not bi-polar is simply devoid of linguistic meaning.


<< This truism is given within with the definition of 'two' and 'four'; the possibility of such definitions presupposes the usage which gives them meaning>>

This makes the picture theory sound like a theory of meaning as use. Nothing about the usage of words gives them meaning, according to the Tractatus - it is precisely the other way around. We can only use the words "two" and "four" meaningfully, because taken together in a proposition they picture a possible state of affairs in the world.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but that's philosophy for you..

Mmmm, not sure about that, Herr Doktor. I seem to recall Wittgenstein saying "The meaning of a word is its use in the language" and two and two is four he regarded as a tautology. It doesn't represent a possible state of affairs in the world because such an abstraction is not in the world in the first place.

Noggin

Well dr Deckchair has a point -- it was later that W said that words' meaning was to be found in their use, and it is a weakness of my entry that I conflate the early and late writings (though since my first drafts I have separated them a little).

I did conflate the various writings on purpose; because I find more continuity than contradiction, or I see a strong thread running through the whole. (Please don't quote the sentence about a single fibre not being the source of the rope's strength, it's late and I can't go back and rethink that -- you know what I mean.)

Dr D takes issue with "The upshot of this is that any sentence that could not be verified (or falsified) cannot be factual" and says "This makes Wittgenstein's picture theory of meaning sound like a verificationist theory of meaning."

Such is indeed my understanding, that a criterion for Tractatus "factuality" is falsifiability; the picture either shows the circumstances of the car crash fairly or it doesn't. Ayer and the Vienna Circle leapt on the falsifiability aspect of the theory, and I understand that Wittgenstein's displeasure with them (both) arose from the fact that while W saw the (excluded) mystical realm as a most important and interesting (if ineffable) place, they were eager to bin it.

Both your specific criticisms (Dr D) mention the picture theory, but I wasn't reading the Tractatus as only proposing that.

In brief, I would argue that verification was a big part of the Tractatus theory of language, though not the whole. It was the lever that got him out from the Russell school and put maths and logic at an extreme end-position within language, with contradiction at the other extreme and factual language in the middle.

I am open to correction. This is how I see it.