A truly banal review. The only thing I learned from it is that the author has read Ludwig Wittgenstein's Wikipedia entry. If you're interested in Wittgenstein, forget the Tractatus and PI, and instead get a copy of the blue book.
> A truly banal review. The only thing I learned from it is that the author has read Ludwig Wittgenstein's Wikipedia entry. If you're interested in Wittgenstein, forget the Tractatus and PI, and instead get a copy of the blue book.
Why not remedy the banality by saying what makes the Tractatus (all that I've read of his) a poor read, and the blue book a good read, for someone interested in Wittgenstein?
Famous author popular work <BAD>. Read relatively unknown book <INSERT SECRET BOOK HERE>.
No evidence given for either why bad, or why secret book good.
If you want people to follow your advice they will need more info. If you want to vainly shout to the world "LOOK AT ME I HAVE READ WITTGENSTEIN. I SMART OTHERS DUMB" keep on posting like that
> In this idea lurks the solipsism that language circumscribes our reality.
Or vice-versa. The result is the same - without a shared experience, communication is difficult, as anyone who goes abroad inevitably finds out. “If a lion could speak, we would not understand him”
Programmers should feel especially at home reading Wittgenstein because his works are a kind of guide to the compiler in the brain that interprets language. The work described in the article is only really relevant to scientific statements about things that do or do not exist in the world. “The cat is on the mat”, “benzene molecules are composed of a ring of atoms”, “harry is taller than Sally”, etc.
His later works are about how we interpret statements outside these scientific statements, such as “I am hungry”, “get me a pail of water”, “Asia is more beautiful than Australia”, or “ouch!”
In both cases, he realizes that the compiler we have gen given through natural and cultural evolution has an incredible amount of undefined behavior, and he tries to explore the space of that undefined behavior and see what limits he hits.
A famous example is his decomposition of “what time is it on the sun?”. His idea is that just because we can ask the question doesn’t mean it has an answer. In London “what time is it” has to do with GMT and cultural norms of Earth living, but our concept of time is heavily influenced by the relation of the sun to the earth, so when we ask what time it is on the sun we are outside of the frame of reference where that question makes sense.
In just the same way, asking “what is the essence of beauty” is an unanswerable question because beauty is tied to a context, whether that be a painting, a sports maneuver, a story, or a program.
I think of Wittgenstein as a 20th century Socrates, who also seemed through his endless questioning to show that our basic concepts float above an endless void of uncertainty and interpretation, just as “x := y +z” has no predetermined meaning outside of the program running it.
From someone who went from Wittgenstein -> programming, I think this is a good comment.
What I really like about the Tractatus, which I've been reading on and off for 20 years and just dusted off to read in German for the first time for the 100th anniversary, is that it gives a really clear, tight metaphysical picture that in the end pretty much forces one to start asking deep questions about the nature of meaning explored in his later work.
It's a hard book but careful study really enhances not just the "main event" of Wittgenstein's mature writings, but one's ability to follow a lot of the main threads not only in analytic philosophy, but in the broader Western metaphysical-logical tradition.
I do wonder how non-philosophers perceive later W. To me it seemed mostly about curing philosophers of their pathology - and thus not particularly valuable to any one else.
my personal feeling as a non-philosopher is that PI cured me in a way of overly-materialist and hierarchical thinking. When I really sat with the idea of language games and with his ruthless attack on the idea that words get their meanings by referring to objects, I had what I can only describe as a spiritual experience.
I had previously lived such a left-brained (maybe slightly autistic) life and I thought all my words and logic and frameworks and habits and hierarchies of value (i.e., my “walk of life”) were REAL. In a sense I thought they way I thought about the world was “god”.
After reading Wittgenstein I realized that “god” was also encompassing of every other persons worldview. Every other walk of life. Talking about feelings is not above or below talking about science. Not everything can be described in words, maybe nothing really can. Live in the world of reality, not the world of words.
Good observation on Socrates. The oracle told Socrates that he was the wisest of the Greeks. Socrates responds that the only thing he knew is that he knows nothing. In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein gets to the sample place in a different way.
I basically agree (he enjoyed the Eastern Front too!). But don't the flaws of the Tractaus put you (all) off Wittgenstein entirely. His later work -- what he wrote when he wasn't in the life-threating midst of unimaginable suffering -- is much more normal in method of argumentation and much easier to digest. Some of it is downright enjoyable to read.
19 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 55.8 ms ] threadWhy not remedy the banality by saying what makes the Tractatus (all that I've read of his) a poor read, and the blue book a good read, for someone interested in Wittgenstein?
No evidence given for either why bad, or why secret book good.
If you want people to follow your advice they will need more info. If you want to vainly shout to the world "LOOK AT ME I HAVE READ WITTGENSTEIN. I SMART OTHERS DUMB" keep on posting like that
Or vice-versa. The result is the same - without a shared experience, communication is difficult, as anyone who goes abroad inevitably finds out. “If a lion could speak, we would not understand him”
His later works are about how we interpret statements outside these scientific statements, such as “I am hungry”, “get me a pail of water”, “Asia is more beautiful than Australia”, or “ouch!”
In both cases, he realizes that the compiler we have gen given through natural and cultural evolution has an incredible amount of undefined behavior, and he tries to explore the space of that undefined behavior and see what limits he hits.
A famous example is his decomposition of “what time is it on the sun?”. His idea is that just because we can ask the question doesn’t mean it has an answer. In London “what time is it” has to do with GMT and cultural norms of Earth living, but our concept of time is heavily influenced by the relation of the sun to the earth, so when we ask what time it is on the sun we are outside of the frame of reference where that question makes sense.
In just the same way, asking “what is the essence of beauty” is an unanswerable question because beauty is tied to a context, whether that be a painting, a sports maneuver, a story, or a program.
I think of Wittgenstein as a 20th century Socrates, who also seemed through his endless questioning to show that our basic concepts float above an endless void of uncertainty and interpretation, just as “x := y +z” has no predetermined meaning outside of the program running it.
What I really like about the Tractatus, which I've been reading on and off for 20 years and just dusted off to read in German for the first time for the 100th anniversary, is that it gives a really clear, tight metaphysical picture that in the end pretty much forces one to start asking deep questions about the nature of meaning explored in his later work.
It's a hard book but careful study really enhances not just the "main event" of Wittgenstein's mature writings, but one's ability to follow a lot of the main threads not only in analytic philosophy, but in the broader Western metaphysical-logical tradition.
my personal feeling as a non-philosopher is that PI cured me in a way of overly-materialist and hierarchical thinking. When I really sat with the idea of language games and with his ruthless attack on the idea that words get their meanings by referring to objects, I had what I can only describe as a spiritual experience.
I had previously lived such a left-brained (maybe slightly autistic) life and I thought all my words and logic and frameworks and habits and hierarchies of value (i.e., my “walk of life”) were REAL. In a sense I thought they way I thought about the world was “god”.
After reading Wittgenstein I realized that “god” was also encompassing of every other persons worldview. Every other walk of life. Talking about feelings is not above or below talking about science. Not everything can be described in words, maybe nothing really can. Live in the world of reality, not the world of words.
Glad to see his works discussed.
Vonnegut's edict was shorter: 'I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.'