[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 480x328, duck4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3801990 No.3801990 [Reply] [Original]

Calling on the help of the Wittgenstein bro who lurks /lit/.

A while back in a thread you said something about Witty finding ethics not to be in the domain of philosophy; that it cannot be studied as such.

I hope this rings a bell. I'm wondering if you have a source for this.

[Reason: Just finished Kierkegaard's CUP and the former was supposed to have been a big influence to Ludwig.]

>> No.3802187

>>3801990
I'm not the guy you're referring to, but Witt says in the TLP that there can be made no accurate observations about the transcendental at all and therefore it's fruitless to discuss it, if that's what you meant.

>> No.3802197

He says this in the Tractatus.

He also has a lecture on ethics that you could read.

>> No.3802243

that was an early Wittgenstein opinion (TLP 6.421 and on is where you'll find it). How it works with his later works is complicated. For the later LW there isn't this strict, eternal line between what can and cannot be said - there is a sense of nonsense invoked when one tries to say something that confuses certain elements of our "grammar" (where this is near the linguistics meaning of the term, meaning everything that we ordinarily and regularly do with language), but there are no language-games per se which are for the later LW somehow logically inadequate. So while LW doesn't really discuss ethics in his formal philosophical work, there's been a lot of subsequent work trying to tie this to ethics. Where ethical propositions are just as much of a language-game as any, but we must be attentive to the depth grammar of such language, what it does in particular contexts (Lebensformen).

Cora Diamond, Naomi Scheman, Sara Lovibond, Cavell, have all done some work on this. In general it's a good antidote to non-cognitivism.

>> No.3802266

>>3802243
Are you Wittgenstein-bro from the other time? (Just wondering.)

I have a copy of the TLP (though I only read the PI) so I'll check out the section and see if it helps. Otherwise off to his lectures I go.

>> No.3802284

>>3802266
I might be - there's like two or three of us. I was in the last big LW thread

the lecture on ethics is a bit strange but it's interesting. If you've given the PI a good close reading then I'd recommend Diamond's essay "Wittgenstein, mathematics, and ethics" and Alice Crary's "Wittgenstein and Ethical Naturalism"

>> No.3802346 [DELETED] 

I think the comment on ethics was on the context of the political views or something like that... I think anon said that contrary to what is normally thought he loved t speak of these matters... or something like that.

That said, I'm not sure OP is aiming right, cause saying that "it cannot be studied as such", implies it CAN be studied, and I'm not sure you can see that in W's writings. Maybe a link with his views and comments on music can throw some light in this matter.

But anyway, the fact that it can't be STUDIED does not mean one should disregard it, quite the contrary... It also seems to me that the ethic aspect is as vivid in the late stuff as in the early but is of course only explicitly stated in his early years; it is also one of the aspects that remained almost "unchanged" across W's life and work, just like his conception of philosophy.

Monitoring the thread for insights or info about Kierkegaard's influence.

>> No.3802351

I think the comment on ethics was on the context of the political views or something like that... I think anon said that contrary to what is normally thought he loved t speak of these matters.

That said, I'm not sure OP is aiming right, cause saying that "it cannot be studied as such", implies it CAN be studied, and I'm not sure you can see that in W's writings. Maybe a link with his views and comments on music can throw some light in this matter.

But anyway, the fact that it can't be STUDIED does not mean one should disregard it, quite the contrary... It also seems to me that the ethic aspect is as vivid in the late stuff as in the early but is of course only explicitly stated in his early years; it is also one of the aspects that remained almost "unchanged" across W's life and work, just like his conception of philosophy.

Monitoring the thread for insights or info about Kierkegaard's influence.

>> No.3802942

>>3802351
OP here

The way you describe it " that contrary to what is normally thought he loved t speak of these matters," is what I was reminded of.

I'd also like to know more about the Kierkegaard influence. In his later work there's an aphorism attributed to Kierkegaard, something to the effect of the need of philosophy.

I'm not studying the influence as such, I just have slight familiarity with Wittgenstein as well so it's interesting to me from the ethical point of view.

What I have in the introductory text to the newest translation of the CUP is that Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein "flout the conventions of scholarship" in terms of revocation.

Another quote: LW was "himself an admiring reader" (of the CUP). And his ladder metaphor might have been borrowed from SK. LW's description of his sentences in the TLP as also being nonsensical might also relate to the notion that SK is being ironic throughout. (Spoiler: he isn't.)
Lastly, LW claimed to be "humbled by [SK's] profundity".

Hope that helps you a bit.

Also thanks for the helpful suggestions >>3802284

>> No.3803042
File: 60 KB, 299x288, 130221984383.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3803042

>>3802942
>his ladder metaphor

That thing has been used many times since the greeks... not similar but literally the same; it is for instance found in Sextus Empiricus.

I'm sure wittgenstein read a lot more than he claimed and took some ideas here and there... all he did is quite hard to achieve for a man alone, and certainly cannot be reached from scratch and claiming as little influence as he did.

That of course is not being said to take merit away, but his figure is certainly "divinized" by commentators and followers in an almost hagiographical way.

>> No.3803378

>>3802942
Wittgenstein has a long segment of passage in Culture and Value about Kierkegaard and Christianity which are, in my opinion, some of the best material he ever wrote. What it amounts to is roughly that religious truths are not historical, but are measured in their truthfulness by the way they structure a life (which is almost pure Kierkegaard). Put that in the context of depth grammar and language-games and their affinity becomes apparent.

>> No.3803390

>>3803042
>his figure is certainly "divinized" by commentators and followers in an almost hagiographical way.

as a scholar engaged with several Wittgenstein scholars, I can confirm that this is often the case (not always, thank god). I have a friend (lovely guy otherwise) who will violently lash out at anything close to critical of Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein himself would have hated it all of course.

>> No.3803463

>>3803390
The greatness and the height of the pedestal where we put these kind of figures only reflects our immense need of models to follow and figures to adore.

That attitude prevents us from seeing what they did, not as a doctrine, but just as an example of someone dealing whit his surroundings in order to deal with ours in our own way.

"Wittgenstein scholar"... what the hell is that, makes absolutely no sense at all.

>> No.3803468

>>3803390
must be fun bringing up the child abuse thing

>> No.3803477

>>3803463
by Wittgenstein scholar I mean someone who studies Wittgenstein or in their work is heavily influenced thereby. idk. I mean my friends and mentors who are interested heavily (sometime primarily) in Wittgenstein. There are two or three in my department. I don't doubt that he's an indispensable figure and an immensely valuable intellectual model, but for some people he can be the only figure, the only model, and that sort idolatry is dangerous. That's all. It ends up, paradoxically, in a "one-sided diet" of philosophers.

>>3803468
not really. we're interested in his philosophy. no doubt he was an awful person.

>> No.3803487

>>3803468
or the male prostitutes thing as well lol

>> No.3803512

>>3803477
I know what a scholar is, the question was not a question but an expression in form of question.

>> No.3803529

>>3803512
fair enough. most of the folks I know (me included) do see exegesis of Wittgenstein as less important than scoping out how his work provides one with tools to dissolve other confusions and problems.

>> No.3803632

>>3803529
How does one get properly into Luddy Dubs? Just dive into Tracta and Phil Inv or is there any needed secondary lit?

>> No.3803654

>>3803378
How easy a read is Culture and Value for someone mostly unfamiliar with philosophy, mathematics? I'm interested in Wittgenstein the figure, and his thoughts on an area I'm more familiar with, ie the arts. I've no understanding of his philosophical work or the background to approach it.

>> No.3803688

These Wittgenstein threads are starting to disgust me more than usual.

>> No.3803711

>>3803688
Sorry

>> No.3804194

I just started reading Tractatus a little bit ago mostly on the suggestion of one of my philosophy buddies IRL, but also partly because of the testimony of good ol' /lit/ here. I haven't gotten too far into it (I'm at point 4) so it is obviously too soon to really judge it ...but I have to say it doesn't seem so far like it's all it's been cracked up to be. It's good, but it's not blowin' my mind or anything. The way people talked about it, I was expecting every sentence to be gold.

I do dig his numerical notation of points of his argument. More philosophers should do that.

>> No.3804216

>>3803632
Personally, I think you should start with Tractatus and then move on to PI; then you can read his other works, like Blue and Brown books.

Others will suggest you read PI first.

>> No.3804411

>>3803654
it's a fairly simple read - indeed most of it is very personal reflections, and so it isn't really philosophical (certainly not mathematical). It's just a fascinating insight into his nonphilosophical state of mind.

>>3803632
yeah I'm on the PI first side, but you could really do either way. I read PI first so that might just be my bias. Reading them in conjunction is in any case a good way to go (he says in the preface that he wanted them published together for that very reason).

>> No.3804831

>>3803688

Take a hike. It's probably the most informative thread active right now. Of course with its share of trolls but they're far easier to spot and ignore.

>> No.3804836
File: 69 KB, 307x3000, 1368960635019.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3804836

>>3804216
>>3804411
Right, he did want them published together BUT by the time he wrote PI he was so convinced of the falsity of TLP (this is why he wanted to publish them together: the good and the bad) that he felt it would be confusing. Instead, he went with Augustine since it's the quintessential example of the language theory Ludwig was attacking.
[With apologies for my oversimplification of Wittgenstein, this is just what I've been taught.]

pic related might help

>> No.3804892

>>3804836
>the falsity
>the quintessential example

looks like you have a lot to read... enjoy the ride.

>> No.3805180

Hi, I'm another of the guys who was in the last thread, and said I'd refresh /lit/ every now and then and ctrl+f 'Wittgenstein'

So in response to your question, OP, one of the main sources for Wittgenstein's explication that ethics isn't in the domain of philosophy is that you can't really find much in his writings about it. When there is writing about it, in TLP and otherwise, it's always his admittance that he doesn't want to create a theory about it.

One of the other reasons we know that Wittgenstein thought that ethics were "something too serious to be left to professional philosophers," is through reported conversations with him. Everyone who discussed ethics with him throughout his life found that he loved to preach ethics but hated to try and philosophize about it. [For many many reports on this, see Monk's biography of Wittgenstein.]

Additionally, there is a 'lecture on Ethics' which has been published in various formats. This is probably the clearest starting point for you, though it is 1929 so properly belongs to the rather awkward to place 'Middle Wittgenstein.'

Perhaps you could read some of the later Lectures on Religious Belief, (late 1930s,) which might help guide you. There will be some overlap, there.

>> No.3805217

>>3805180
>Hi, I'm another of the guys who was in the last thread, and said I'd refresh /lit/ every now and then and ctrl+f 'Wittgenstein'
fuuka.warosu.org/lit/
much easier

>> No.3805286

Check the Engelmann memoir for that, or even the McGuinness biography (it focuses on the early years).

And please stop referencing Monk's biography, thats just a "beautiful portrait of a beautiful life" as is said on the back cover. And a picture of a person is not the person so don't take it literally, cause that's how everyone seems to take it (which is not to say it is useless).