[Wittrs] Re: Stuart Mirsky's Review of McGuinness' Young Ludwig
- From: brendan downs <downs_brendan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 05:25:45 +1300
Reply to SWM
Wittgenstein writes in his preface that his Philosophical Investigations
stands against and with the Tractatus, I would like to emphasize the "WITH"
part, how much of the Tratatus is in Philosophical Investigations? I don't
think Wittgenstein was naive enough to think that the actual world consisted
not of "things" but "facts", but how can we rationalize such a statement or
truely make sense of it. Wittgenstein is one of the Godfathers of the
linguistic paradigm created by figures such as Frege, Moore and Russell which
was a revolt against the Absolute Idealists. Wittgenstein was a Conceptualist
Idealist exemplified by the statement "The limits of my language are the limits
of my world" I illerate again, I don't think Wittgenstein believed that the
only thing that existed was linguistic entities and I qualify this my the use
of "my world" not "the world". This is Idealist talk as in comparison to say
ordinary language and idea-ist talk "I have a red idea", this kind of talk is
meant to resolve contradictions as in a observation report of type "it is a
round coin but it appears epllitical". So in what sense or lingo is
Wittgenstein Talking? It is possible to conceive he is not talking of the world
but the world of linguistic philosophy conceived by him. i.e. he has changed
hats of ordinary language talk and placed on the cap of a linguistic
philosopher as in contrast to say of a thereotical physicists i.e the physists
talks of tables consisting of electrons and not wood or to we have two tables?
one made of electrons and one made of wood, I think you see my distinction. The
common mistake for realists is to think that certain types of idealists are
talking about the real world instead of say a paradigm. In certain light we may
conceive of Wittgenstein defining a paradigm that the realists don't understand
an, example of this can be is that we can have a second reading of the
Tractatus and possibly Philosopical Investigations. I think that the early
statement about natural scientific statements, not scientific generalizations
that he may have been eluding to is the problem of negative existentials, in
that we just pass over talking of them.
Brendan
_________________________________________________________________
Feeling the financial pinch? Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand
http://money.msn.co.nz
Other related posts:
