Taking sides: Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus vs his Philosophical Investigations

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
OK, so who was saying ILX has dumbed down?

I have read several explanations of Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument, and yet have never quite managed to get to grips with it. Someone care to explain it in easy, non-technical terms?

Jonathan Z., Friday, 7 November 2003 11:11 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Hmm, yesterday I saw 'Human Nature': end credits have a computer voice reciting Wittgenstein and it's hilarious because it is VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND. So -- no comment.

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:15 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Someone care to explain it in easy, non-technical terms?

I think this is the justification of the "dumbing down" allegations.

Citizen Kate (kate), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:15 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Hey can't non-philosophers talk about philosophy every now and then?

Jonathan Z., Friday, 7 November 2003 11:17 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

i. internal discussion is an echo-examination-exptrapolation of previous external discussion
ii. language is learned socially - meaning is learned via use/effect on others etc - so for a language to be "private", the person whose language it is wd have had to have had zero interaction w.anyone else ever => the echo wd be zero, the language wd never begin (or need to)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:21 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Jeder mann fur sich und Got against alles

Kaspar (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:23 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I said "easy, non-technical"...

You seem to know your stuff so I'll run my probably flawed understanding of it by you. Descartes tried to prove the existence of the world by starting with the premise that at least he knew he existed, thereby basing all knowledge on subjective experience. The Private Language Argument refutes this, because without any outside reference or reference to other people's subjective experience, we can never know what we're referring to. Therefore, we can't build our knowledge of the world on our own subjective experience.

Jonathan Z., Friday, 7 November 2003 11:26 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

mark was being ironic innit

language is learned socially - meaning is learned via use/effect on others etc

Well, yers, Witters!

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:28 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I think I better start drinking some alcohol soon.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:28 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Samirah Makhmalbaf to thread (specifically The Apple, a film in which twin girls are kept seperate from everybody but each other by their over-protective father [their mum died in childbirth as I remember], and as a result of this they developed her own language, which is about as near to a private language as possible).

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:29 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

She shd come to thread anyway for bign generally PUnXXor. I just saw her newbie, set in Afghanistan. Same age as Britney (and me). 'The Apple' is one of the great recent films. Newie pretty damned good.

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:32 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Never trust anything a man didnae want published is a rule of thumb I live by.

That said the idea of language as an agreed on set of ever shifting (slightly) rules moves the argument on what ideas and thoughts refer to out into the public domain. It is no longer a problem in my head alone, it is a problem for society. Which doesn't exist and vanishes in a poof.

Private = solo, solitaryt. Two is the basis on non-private. Apple is good tho.

Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:33 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

yeah sorta kinda: however "subjective" and "objective" are very confusing and poorly formed ideas (they're technical AND obsolete philosophical jargon, really)

ie descartes's proof required that god exists and is not dicking around ie his "pure subjectivity" is grounded in a faith-based "objectivity" - "pure subjectivity" can't get you started unless you assume accurate shareable information is already installed prior to any encounter and/or exchange of any kind with anyone else


mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:35 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

(x-post)

(Possibly the first time ever that Britney Spears has been mentioned in a thread about Wittgenstein.)

Jonathan Z., Friday, 7 November 2003 11:35 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Never trust anything a man didnae want published is a rule of thumb I live by.

Kafka, Shakespeare...

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:37 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

EXACTLY.

Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:38 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I'm glad mark helped clarify that. I literally do not understand concept of objectivity -- partly because I dipped in only a little bit into philisophy at a-level and don't know enough. But I can't get my head round it. Which is my prob with late Marx.

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:40 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

It is something less than heaven
To be quoted Thesis 1.7
Every time I make an advance;
if the world is all that the case is
That's a pretty discouraging basis
On which to pursue
Any sort of romance.
I've got a proposition for you;
Logical, positive and brief
And at least it could serve as a kind of comic relief:
(refrain)
Let P equal me,
With my heart in command;
Let Q equal you
With Tractatus in hand
And R could stand for a lifetime of love,
Filled with music to fondle and purr to.
We'll define love as anything lovely you'd care to infer to.
On the right, put that bright,
Hypothetical case;
On the left, our uncleft,
Parenthetical chase.
And that horseshoe there in the middle
Could be lucky; we've got nothing to lose,
If in thse parentheses
We just mind our little P's and Q's.

Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:43 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Don't understand it becoz you think that it cannot exist (in ways it has been defined to you) or don't understand because it has not been defined well. Objectivity as some sort of omniscient subjectivity is a concept I can just about grasp, but objectivity as a display of REAL ACTUAL TRUTH troubles me no end.

Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:44 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know how concepts of that sort 'exist', I suppose. Does objectivity exist objectively. That sort of thing. It doesn't keep me awake mights.

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:46 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Or nights.

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:47 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Fair cop. Concepts of that sort of course exist subjectively as part of the language game, but it is clear that the meaning is only ever fixed by concesus (one of the reasons why the overlap of a technical term and a conversational colloquialisms such as objective and subjective are so undesireable).

Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:50 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Ah -- intersubjectivity then. I always love ILM threads like 'shd music reviewing be objective?'. But I sort of know what they mean -- early Suede OBJECTIVELY sound a bit like 'Aladdin Sane' era Bowie, I suppose. But. It's a battlefield.

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:53 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

(wht is tht JtN?)

brutal (Cozen), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:56 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

No, that's love you are thinking of.

Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 11:57 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

What else is there to think of?

Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 7 November 2003 12:02 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

(It's a song from this book Coz.)

Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 7 November 2003 12:12 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

seven years pass...

i feel like i understand the philosophical investigations much more than the tractatus. i can read each section and follow it from what i've read - whereas the tractatus i found very confusing. i'll have to go back and try again though, i haven't read the tractatus as a whole in about four years.

jeevves, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

seven years pass...

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.