alt.philosophy.novice
Mhoram
better than the other, the better is not challenged in any way and
usually feels like he should take it easy on the other, which is never
fun. The other person knows that he is holding back the other player
and feels like a burden, trying his best to keep up, usually becoming
fustrated.
This reply serves as a bump. I saw no replies that offered any good
reason against an alt.philosophy.novice. Frankly, i'm disappointed,
people so well versed in logic can't offer any more reason against
having it than "well..you'd be better off taking some classes
anyway..." or just being cynical.
========================================================================
Not a bad argument, Mhoram. You have a clear conclusion and
supporting statements that clearly
support your conclusion. Keep up the good work. My only suggestion
(which you probably won't need)
would be to continue to make well supported arguments.
Also, I agree with you that it can often be more fun to play someone
who has a similar level of
skill; but just out of curiousity, what do you think it is about a
person's level of skill that
allows you to 'relate to them better'?
cl
"Mhoram" <lordm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2c205f6.02111...@posting.google.com...
> I was just thing, alt.philosophy is pretty intense, maybe it would be
> good to have a subsection for novices. I'm sure there are a good bit
> of people out there just getting into philosophy that would gain a lot
> from discussion, but find alt.philosophy to always be over their head.
> This is the case often enough for me atleast, I know i'd appreciate a
> section that works on a lower level. I think it's like playing
> pingpong or some other one on one sport, the most fun is had when the
> participants are close to each other in skill level, they can relate
> better. I think it's probally the same way in philosophy. While
> listening and learning from someone more educated than you is great, I
> think there is a real need for discussion with equals.
>
> It would be my hope that an alt.philosophy.novice would have room for
> people that know nothing about philosophy at all, and would also have
> room for the well educated members of alt.philosophy to give direction
> and teach a little as they desired. As people making their home in
> alt.philosophy.novice gain more and more knowledge they'll gradually
> spend more time in alt.philosophy, until finally moving there for
> good.
>
> What do you think?
Myriad of Pain
I thought alt.philosophy was a novice group...<shrugs> It is kind of fun
here, but I think the vast majority of the posters are complete novices.
Sure they've read this and that, and can use a search engine, but very
little here would pass even for a 'B' paper in a 100 level philosophy course
at a community college. The illusion that this stuff is over someone's head
is analogous to the situation one encounters with a crazed street-person.
It isn't that the street-person is talking over your head; it is that the
street-person is confused and doesn't make any sense. This group is peopled
with street-people -- street-peopled, if you will...
MoP
Chad L
stopping someone from creating alt.philosophy.novice? It almost sounds as
if you are daring people to "hold you back" from starting such a thing. If
you want alt.philosophy.novice -- then do it. Good luck.
cl
p.s.
MoP is basically right, imo.
"Mhoram" <lordm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2c205f6.03040...@posting.google.com...
Paul Sinnett
>> be good to have a subsection for novices. I'm sure there are a good
>> bit of people out there just getting into philosophy that would
>> gain a lot from discussion, but find alt.philosophy to always be
>> over their head. This is the case often enough for me atleast, I
>> know i'd appreciate a section that works on a lower level. I think
>> it's like playing pingpong or some other one on one sport, the most
>> fun is had when the participants are close to each other in skill
>> level, they can relate better. I think it's probally the same way
>> in philosophy. While listening and learning from someone more
>> educated than you is great, I think there is a real need for
>> discussion with equals.
>>
>> It would be my hope that an alt.philosophy.novice would have room
>> for people that know nothing about philosophy at all, and would
>> also have room for the well educated members of alt.philosophy to
>> give direction and teach a little as they desired. As people making
>> their home in alt.philosophy.novice gain more and more knowledge
>> they'll gradually spend more time in alt.philosophy, until finally
>> moving there for good.
>>
>> What do you think?
I don't think philosophy works like that. When most of us think of a
philosopher we imagine someone like Socrates. But Socrates spent his
time wandering around Athens in his dirty cloak, questioning everyday
Athenians about their lives. So I think any philosophy group would
betray it's subject by not making room for people who know nothing at
all about philosophy.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates
"The philosopher does not only help us to conceive that others may be
wrong, he offers us a simple method by which we can ourselves determine
what is right. Few philosophers have had a more minimal sense of what is
needed to begin a thinking life. We do not need years of formal
education and a leisured existence. Anyone with a curious and well
ordered mind who seeks to evaluate a common sense belief can start a
conversation with a friend in a city street and, by following a Socratic
method, may arrive at one or two ground-breaking ideas in under half an
hour." - Alain de Botton on Socrates.
Myriad of Pain
"Paul Sinnett" <paul.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3E95FC22...@btinternet.com...
"Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful waste
of time!" -- Wittgenstein
MoP
Paul Sinnett
> of time!" -- Wittgenstein
Of course, alt.philosophy.bigots could be a winner. ;-)
Myriad of Pain
Touché!
Mop
Mhoram
to get the proposal in as soon as I can. It's a bit of a deal, and it
will need interest votes. Wouldn't be surprised if it gets shot down,
but oh well.
Immortalist
> > "Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful
waste
> > of time!" -- Wittgenstein
Why do socialists have a hard time with Plato? I guess thats what happens
when you choose the wrong viewpoint huh? Shame on that Wittgenstein ass!
Myriad of Pain
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v9esaa7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul Sinnett" <paul.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3E96D4F4...@btinternet.com...
> > > "Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful
> waste
> > > of time!" -- Wittgenstein
>
> Why do socialists have a hard time with Plato?
Socialists?
> I guess thats what happens
> when you choose the wrong viewpoint huh? Shame on that Wittgenstein ass!
>
Wrong viewpoint? -- Ass?
The Socratic dialogues are a frightful waste of time.
MoP
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
news:mGLla.2714$S6....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:v9esaa7...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Paul Sinnett" <paul.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E96D4F4...@btinternet.com...
> > > > "Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a
frightful
> > waste
> > > > of time!" -- Wittgenstein
> >
> > Why do socialists have a hard time with Plato?
>
>
> Socialists?
>
In the middle of the road it is good to borrow and pro-create from and with
the good within both sides, left, right or any other Dick-otomy.
...Austrian social scientist Otto Neurath. An exceedingly unorthodox Marxist
and democratic socialist (clearly, his heart was in the right place), by
turns he developed schemes for moneyless ``economies in kind,'' was employed
to socialize the economy of Bavaria after the First World War, was arrested
by the Weimar government during the suppression of the Bavarian Soviet
Republic, established a ``museum of social and economic relationships'' back
in Red Vienna, joined the Logical Positivists, helped write the
*manifesto_of_the_Vienna_Circle*, wrote extensively on and against
philosophy, developed a system for the visual display of quantitative
information known as the Vienna Method or Isotype, conceived and edited
(with Carnap) the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science and fled
Austria for Holland and then Holland for England, where he died very
suddenly in 1945, at work on a public housing project...
hwww.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/encyclopedia-and-utopia/
>
> > I guess thats what happens
> > when you choose the wrong viewpoint huh? Shame on that Wittgenstein ass!
> >
>
>
> Wrong viewpoint? -- Ass?
>
> The Socratic dialogues are a frightful waste of time.
>
> MoP
>
If Marx, on learning of Darwin's evolutionary theory asked, "what can we
steal from there Engles?" and totally fucked up by misinterpretation of
massive pluralism, we can find some good things to correct in Wittgenstein.
Sorry just getting up and around. I'll mellow out in a few and be more
civil.
http://tinyurl.com/9e68
Myriad of Pain
We were talking about what Wittgenstein said of Socrates. Neurath never
entered the picture. What does this have to do with anything?
> >
> > > I guess thats what happens
> > > when you choose the wrong viewpoint huh? Shame on that Wittgenstein
ass!
> > >
> >
> >
> > Wrong viewpoint? -- Ass?
> >
> > The Socratic dialogues are a frightful waste of time.
> >
> > MoP
> >
>
> LOL:
> http://tinyurl.com/9e5u
>
> If Marx, on learning of Darwin's evolutionary theory asked, "what can we
> steal from there Engles?" and totally fucked up by misinterpretation of
> massive pluralism, we can find some good things to correct in
Wittgenstein.
>
> Sorry just getting up and around. I'll mellow out in a few and be more
> civil.
> http://tinyurl.com/9e68
>
I'd be curious to hear you explain one or more of these 'corrections' of
Wittgenstein.
Patiently waiting,
MoP
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
I suppose they could be from some perspectives. My goal with Plato is to get
all his socratic diolgoues and create detailed embedded contents in such a
way that what ever subject came up I could click on Socrates method dealing
with similar topics. An answer to any question from Socrates mouth. Theres
my bias I suppose. I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political talk.
> > > MoP
> > >
> >
> > LOL:
> > http://tinyurl.com/9e5u
> >
> > If Marx, on learning of Darwin's evolutionary theory asked, "what can we
> > steal from there Engles?" and totally fucked up by misinterpretation of
> > massive pluralism, we can find some good things to correct in
> Wittgenstein.
> >
> > Sorry just getting up and around. I'll mellow out in a few and be more
> > civil.
> > http://tinyurl.com/9e68
> >
>
>
> I'd be curious to hear you explain one or more of these 'corrections' of
> Wittgenstein.
>
> Patiently waiting,
> MoP
>
OK but not right away I find it a waste of time. I respect Wittgenstein
greatly really but have taken an political shift lately, I will snap out of
it soon enough and get back into number crunching munchers. I want to really
test Wittgenstein against "genetic algorithms" and am very interested in
finding out what vonNueman thought of his ideas. Studying systems theories
since the late 80s I find it strange that in nearly all the literature there
is no mention of him. This might actually be an opportunity to add to the
current van gaurd.
Myriad of Pain
There are perspectives other than the ones that take it to be a waste of
time?! I honestly don't see the value, unless you want to appeal to the
general desire to find truth and avoid wrong beliefs. However, most people
reading philosophy already consider that to be a worthwhile venture --
finding truth and avoiding wrong belief. As far as I can tell, the
dialogues, when I read them, all went in the same direction: Socrates asks a
confused question, gets a confused answer, inserts foot in mouth, and then
carries on until the end of the text or reader's interest, whichever comes
first.
> My goal with Plato is to get
> all his socratic diolgoues and create detailed embedded contents in such a
> way that what ever subject came up I could click on Socrates method
dealing
> with similar topics. An answer to any question from Socrates mouth. Theres
> my bias I suppose.
I envy you for having to go to so much trouble to find wrong answers. I
come up with them when I intend to do anything but!
> I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political talk.
>
Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However, the
'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite often.
Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most confused. I
find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact, that it would
still be paying much attention to the Republic.
> > > > MoP
> > > >
> > >
> > > LOL:
> > > http://tinyurl.com/9e5u
> > >
> > > If Marx, on learning of Darwin's evolutionary theory asked, "what can
we
> > > steal from there Engles?" and totally fucked up by misinterpretation
of
> > > massive pluralism, we can find some good things to correct in
> > Wittgenstein.
> > >
> > > Sorry just getting up and around. I'll mellow out in a few and be more
> > > civil.
> > > http://tinyurl.com/9e68
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'd be curious to hear you explain one or more of these 'corrections' of
> > Wittgenstein.
> >
> > Patiently waiting,
> > MoP
> >
>
> OK but not right away I find it a waste of time.
Well, I hardly think it would be a waste of time, considering that
Wittgenstein scholars claim that the tip of the iceberg has only been
scraped regarding Wittgenstein's thought, that most people completely
misunderstand Wittgenstein's philosophy, that most of the secondary
literature on Wittgenstein is almost laughable, etc. In fact, it is usually
my default position that if someone sees a 'problem' with Wittgenstein's
philosophy, he or she is probably misunderstanding his philosophy entirely.
However, I am open to argument, so I usually try to figure out where the
problem -- whether it be L.W.'s or the person's in question -- is to be
found.
> I respect Wittgenstein
> greatly really
As do I -- predominantly his later work, of course.
> but have taken an political shift lately, I will snap out of
> it soon enough and get back into number crunching munchers.
I'm curious as to what a 'political shift' has to do with Wittgenstein...?
I have yet to read everything of his that has been published (though I am
working on it), but I have read a great deal and do not recall much in the
way of politics. He did fight in both World Wars, and I'll grant I don't
know much about the details of that, but I don't see any of that mentioned
in his philosophy, certainly not in the major works.
> I want to really
> test Wittgenstein against "genetic algorithms" and am very interested in
> finding out what vonNueman thought of his ideas. Studying systems theories
> since the late 80s I find it strange that in nearly all the literature
there
> is no mention of him. This might actually be an opportunity to add to the
> current van gaurd.
>
You lose me here, I'm afraid. I'm unfamiliar with these 'genetic
algorithms' and how one would test Wittgenstein against them. Perhaps it is
something in his philosophy of mathematics? Admittedly, I am largely
unfamiliar with his work in, say, "Remarks on the Foundations of
Mathematics", though it is in my 'pile' of things to read. I also must
admit to not knowing of this 'von Nueman' person.
TTFN,
MoP
Paul Sinnett
> waste of time!" -- Wittgenstein
I think Wittgenstein was commenting more on Plato than he was on
Socrates. Plato was using Socrates as a device to present his own views
about philosophical subjects. As such, Plato was not only providing both
sides of the conversation but acting as judge on the value of those
arguments.
Socrates himself spent his time talking to real people and let them be
the judge. I suspect he also would have considered invented
conversations for the purpose of teaching "a frightful waste of time." I
base my suspicion on the evidence that he didn't spend his life doing that.
I think creating an alt.philosophy.novice group would be doing a
dis-service to the subject of philosophy.
Wittgenstein considered philosophical questions to be horrendously
tangled knots of confusion: "Why is philosophy so complicated? It ought
to be entirely simple. Philosophy unties the knots in our thinking that
we have, in a senseless way, put there. To do this it must make
movements that are just as complicated as these knots. Although the
result of philosophy is simple, its method cannot be if it is to
succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not a complexity of its subject
matter, but of our knotted understanding."
I think he was wrong to conclude that our method must be complex. If our
confusion over philosophical questions is caused by our accumulated
attempts to understand them then we could, like Wittgenstein, spend our
lives attempting to remove this confusion. Of his own work, Wittgenstein
said: "It is not impossible, that it should fall to the lot of this
work, in its poverty and in the darkness of this time, to bring light
into one brain or another — but, of course, it is not likely." And if
it's unlikely that somebody as smart as Wittgenstein is going to help us
remove our confusion then what hope is there?
I think there is an alternative solution to a knotted understanding. It
is the solution that Socrates advocated: "know that we know nothing." If
we begin from a position of ignorance we cannot be confused by our own
understanding.
Now, that is not as easy as it might sound. It's not an easy thing to
unknow those truths which we hold to be self evident. It takes practice.
But fortunately, for those of us who (like Wittgenstein) are confused by
our own understanding, we have those who really don't know to guide us.
I don't think Socrates went among the ordinary people of Athens to teach
wisdom, I think he went among them to learn ignorance.
In conclusion I think that creating an alt.philosophy.novice group would
be, as Wittgenstein might say, "a frightful waste of time." Nobody
should consider themselves unworthy to post here. This already is a
novice group - and that is exactly how it should be.
Ocean County,N.J.
circumstance at a comfortable balance.. Rather than the traditional
social academic games of "for & or against" seeming facts..Idea's
move,facts lead to foolish noise, one being better than the
other..Philosophy works more, to be viewed in the present & not hero
worship idols of the past..Too many work too hard selling what you
don't "really need" but it keeps people employed..
chi...@webtv.net from N.J.
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
Socrates is in reality an summary by plato of lawyers of his time. Court
room procedures of another time might look strange to a socialist view of
one size fits all. Good thing they lost and we all differ a bit in what we
like.
>
>
> > My goal with Plato is to get
> > all his socratic diolgoues and create detailed embedded contents in such
a
> > way that what ever subject came up I could click on Socrates method
> dealing
> > with similar topics. An answer to any question from Socrates mouth.
Theres
> > my bias I suppose.
>
>
>
> I envy you for having to go to so much trouble to find wrong answers. I
> come up with them when I intend to do anything but!
>
I live in a free democracy and have little concern for top down controlling
views. But I respect your right to be critical or enjoy the arts of society.
I am merely describing thing and hope I don't appear to be *prescribing*
which for socialists is a hard distinction to make indeedyweewee.
>
>
> > I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> > shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political talk.
> >
>
>
>
> Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However, the
> 'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite often.
> Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most confused. I
> find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact, that it
would
> still be paying much attention to the Republic.
>
party on dude i am all fer ya if yer likes it loc.
Comparing this philosopher is not a waste of time to me but i have to much
territory that is an open wild west with only a few trail blazers surrounded
by dogmas.
>
>
> > I respect Wittgenstein
> > greatly really
>
>
>
> As do I -- predominantly his later work, of course.
>
>
>
> > but have taken an political shift lately, I will snap out of
> > it soon enough and get back into number crunching munchers.
>
>
>
> I'm curious as to what a 'political shift' has to do with Wittgenstein...?
> I have yet to read everything of his that has been published (though I am
> working on it), but I have read a great deal and do not recall much in the
> way of politics. He did fight in both World Wars, and I'll grant I don't
> know much about the details of that, but I don't see any of that mentioned
> in his philosophy, certainly not in the major works.
>
I like to think that way, you?
>
>
> > I want to really
> > test Wittgenstein against "genetic algorithms" and am very interested in
> > finding out what vonNueman thought of his ideas. Studying systems
theories
> > since the late 80s I find it strange that in nearly all the literature
> there
> > is no mention of him. This might actually be an opportunity to add to
the
> > current van gaurd.
> >
>
>
>
> You lose me here, I'm afraid. I'm unfamiliar with these 'genetic
> algorithms' and how one would test Wittgenstein against them. Perhaps it
is
> something in his philosophy of mathematics? Admittedly, I am largely
> unfamiliar with his work in, say, "Remarks on the Foundations of
> Mathematics", though it is in my 'pile' of things to read. I also must
> admit to not knowing of this 'von Nueman' person.
>
> TTFN,
> MoP
>
Keep an open mind friend for there is much new science in the vangaurd which
has unclaimed applications which someone could easilly exploit.
Myriad of Pain
What? The lawyers were the Sophists, whom Socrates hated and strove to be
unlike. They were inclined to use reason to make money, whether it was
proper reason or pseudo-reason. This is completely opposed to what Socrates
stood for.
> Court
> room procedures of another time might look strange to a socialist view of
> one size fits all. Good thing they lost and we all differ a bit in what we
> like.
>
What the hell do you keep talking about with socialism? Are you confusing
this thread with another? There is nothing here that has anything to do
with socialism.
> >
> >
> > > My goal with Plato is to get
> > > all his socratic diolgoues and create detailed embedded contents in
such
> a
> > > way that what ever subject came up I could click on Socrates method
> > dealing
> > > with similar topics. An answer to any question from Socrates mouth.
> Theres
> > > my bias I suppose.
> >
> >
> >
> > I envy you for having to go to so much trouble to find wrong answers. I
> > come up with them when I intend to do anything but!
> >
>
> I live in a free democracy and have little concern for top down
controlling
> views. But I respect your right to be critical or enjoy the arts of
society.
> I am merely describing thing and hope I don't appear to be *prescribing*
> which for socialists is a hard distinction to make indeedyweewee.
>
Again with the socialism?! Your replies barely seem to be relevant to the
quotes you cite and the topic as a whole. Where you live is not relevant at
all. The fact is that Socrates was really good at making mistakes. He
would have been eaten alive by later philosophers (like Wittgenstein) -- in
fact, had Wittgenstein and Socrates lived at the same time, Socrates
pontificating his rubbish and Wittgenstein doing his thing, we probably
wouldn't remember Socrates at all today. Yet, we probably would be a lot
further ahead of the game had we benefitted from Wittgensteinian insight
that early on.
> >
> >
> > > I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> > > shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political talk.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However, the
> > 'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite often.
> > Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most confused.
I
> > find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact, that it
> would
> > still be paying much attention to the Republic.
> >
>
> party on dude i am all fer ya if yer likes it loc.
>
Piece of advice: Post sober, at least occasionally.
Most likely it is a waste of time because you lack a sufficient
understanding of Wittgenstein's work. Now, rather than babbling on barely
coherently, how about you put up or shut up? All of this meandering about
is making me feel like you deliberately mean to waste our time -- waste your
own, if you like, but I have better things to do.
> >
> >
> > > I respect Wittgenstein
> > > greatly really
> >
> >
> >
> > As do I -- predominantly his later work, of course.
> >
> >
> >
> > > but have taken an political shift lately, I will snap out of
> > > it soon enough and get back into number crunching munchers.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm curious as to what a 'political shift' has to do with
Wittgenstein...?
> > I have yet to read everything of his that has been published (though I
am
> > working on it), but I have read a great deal and do not recall much in
the
> > way of politics. He did fight in both World Wars, and I'll grant I
don't
> > know much about the details of that, but I don't see any of that
mentioned
> > in his philosophy, certainly not in the major works.
> >
>
> I like to think that way, you?
>
Think what way? -- I think you need to get back on the wagon...
> >
> >
> > > I want to really
> > > test Wittgenstein against "genetic algorithms" and am very interested
in
> > > finding out what vonNueman thought of his ideas. Studying systems
> theories
> > > since the late 80s I find it strange that in nearly all the literature
> > there
> > > is no mention of him. This might actually be an opportunity to add to
> the
> > > current van gaurd.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > You lose me here, I'm afraid. I'm unfamiliar with these 'genetic
> > algorithms' and how one would test Wittgenstein against them. Perhaps
it
> is
> > something in his philosophy of mathematics? Admittedly, I am largely
> > unfamiliar with his work in, say, "Remarks on the Foundations of
> > Mathematics", though it is in my 'pile' of things to read. I also must
> > admit to not knowing of this 'von Nueman' person.
> >
> > TTFN,
> > MoP
> >
>
> Keep an open mind friend for there is much new science in the vangaurd
which
> has unclaimed applications which someone could easilly exploit.
>
I'm not interested in science so much as I am in philosophy.
MoP
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
True, true. But Socrates was not not heavily influenced by these lawyers and
his approach was an new version more kinder and compassionate in its
decisiveness.
>
>
> > Court
> > room procedures of another time might look strange to a socialist view
of
> > one size fits all. Good thing they lost and we all differ a bit in what
we
> > like.
> >
>
>
>
>
> What the hell do you keep talking about with socialism? Are you confusing
> this thread with another? There is nothing here that has anything to do
> with socialism.
>
Alright, alright, Im just jokin' man [kinda].
Ya but with Socrates you got an plain language answer to *any* question and
his western civilization your man was born into. Trivial I suppose but still
a little noteworthy?
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> > > > shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political talk.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However, the
> > > 'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite often.
> > > Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most confused.
> I
> > > find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact, that it
> > would
> > > still be paying much attention to the Republic.
> > >
> >
> > party on dude i am all fer ya if yer likes it loc.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Piece of advice: Post sober, at least occasionally.
>
Never could drink alchohal really.
OK. But how much do I know about Wittgenstein's work?
oh
Myriad of Pain
How do you reconcile this with "Socrates is in reality an summary by plato
of lawyers of his time"?
> >
> >
> > > Court
> > > room procedures of another time might look strange to a socialist view
> of
> > > one size fits all. Good thing they lost and we all differ a bit in
what
> we
> > > like.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What the hell do you keep talking about with socialism? Are you
confusing
> > this thread with another? There is nothing here that has anything to do
> > with socialism.
> >
>
> Alright, alright, Im just jokin' man [kinda].
>
Well, unfortunately, you're the only one who is getting the joke...=\
The above reads rather strangely. Mind clarifying a bit?
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> > > > > shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political
talk.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However, the
> > > > 'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite often.
> > > > Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most
confused.
> > I
> > > > find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact, that
it
> > > would
> > > > still be paying much attention to the Republic.
> > > >
> > >
> > > party on dude i am all fer ya if yer likes it loc.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Piece of advice: Post sober, at least occasionally.
> >
>
> Never could drink alchohal really.
>
You seem to be experiencing the effects, nonetheless...=P
Isn't that something that *you* would have to tell *me*?
MoP
<snip>
Myriad of Pain
> > "Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful
> > waste of time!" -- Wittgenstein
>
> I think Wittgenstein was commenting more on Plato than he was on
> Socrates.
In the sense that we know of Socrates through Plato, possibly -- In the
sense that our best knowledge of Socrates' actual beliefs would probably
show Socrates' beliefs to be okay with L.W., probably not.
> Plato was using Socrates as a device to present his own views
> about philosophical subjects. As such, Plato was not only providing both
> sides of the conversation but acting as judge on the value of those
> arguments.
>
That is true, to a point. There are certain dialogues that are probably
very accurate. Oddly enough, the names of the dialogues are evading me...
Anyway, the one where Socrates is on trial, for example, is usually thought
to be a near exact transcription of Socrates' actual words. The reason is
because so many people were present, and Plato couldn't have gotten away
with much omission or addition. Furthermore, much of the earlier work is
probably a lot more Socrates than Plato.
> Socrates himself spent his time talking to real people and let them be
> the judge. I suspect he
"[H]e", meaning L.W., here?
> also would have considered invented
> conversations for the purpose of teaching "a frightful waste of time." I
> base my suspicion on the evidence that he didn't spend his life doing
that.
>
Hmm... I may be mis-reading you here, but it sounds like you're suggesting
that Wittgenstein was only against the use of contrived discussions for
teaching philosophy. If that is what you're saying, then it is completely
wrong. Consider that Wittgenstein, himself, frequently makes use of an
interlocutor in his own writings, particularly the Philosophical
Investigations.
I think what L.W.'s problem was was with the confusion that is obvious in
the Socratic dialogue's. For example, in PI, L.W. quotes a piece from the
Thaetetus (sp?) that goes something like:
"[S: If one is thinking, then he must be thinking of *something*, right?
"I: Yes, certainly.
"S: And that something must also be real, mustn't it?
"I: Yes, certainly.]"
Then L.W. says something like: "[And if a painter paints, he must be
painting *something*, and that 'something' must be real! However, is that
something the thing that is painted on the canvas -- say the image of a
man -- or the man that the image refers to?]"
This doesn't look much like a critique of the dialectical method...
> I think creating an alt.philosophy.novice group would be doing a
> dis-service to the subject of philosophy.
>
> Wittgenstein considered philosophical questions to be horrendously
> tangled knots of confusion: "Why is philosophy so complicated? It ought
> to be entirely simple. Philosophy unties the knots in our thinking that
> we have, in a senseless way, put there. To do this it must make
> movements that are just as complicated as these knots. Although the
> result of philosophy is simple, its method cannot be if it is to
> succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not a complexity of its subject
> matter, but of our knotted understanding."
>
Could you give a citation for this quote? It is one that I like, yet I
cannot recall where it is from.
> I think he was wrong to conclude that our method must be complex. If our
> confusion over philosophical questions is caused by our accumulated
> attempts to understand them then we could, like Wittgenstein, spend our
> lives attempting to remove this confusion.
I'm not clear on what you mean to get at here. You seem to start with a
conclusion, then follow with what I suppose is a premise meant to support
it. However, the rest of the paragraph, below, seems to break from this.
Please clarify -- particularly: Why do you think the method need not be
complex?
> Of his own work, Wittgenstein
> said: "It is not impossible, that it should fall to the lot of this
> work, in its poverty and in the darkness of this time, to bring light
> into one brain or another — but, of course, it is not likely." And if
> it's unlikely that somebody as smart as Wittgenstein is going to help us
> remove our confusion then what hope is there?
>
However, it does seem that more and more people are beginning to receive the
"light". Wittgenstein scholarship is getting clearer and clearer -- it is
understanding him better and better. As is often the case with the genius
type, L.W.'s thoughts were just so foreign to the rest of us that it is
taking some time to come around to fully appreciating them. I'm reminded of
Picasso's paintings beings used, initially, to line a chicken-coop!
> I think there is an alternative solution to a knotted understanding. It
> is the solution that Socrates advocated: "know that we know nothing." If
> we begin from a position of ignorance we cannot be confused by our own
> understanding.
>
To say that we "know nothing" is to misunderstand the grammar of "know".
There are a lot of things we "know", and there are a lot of things that
simply "stand fast" for us. That chairs exist, for example, is something
that stands fast. For Socrates to limit the grammar of "know", as he did,
is to confine the concept in such a way that we are not comfortable with it.
I could go on . . .
Bottomline: Socrates was simply confused.
Wittgenstein: "[Philosophy is our defense against the bewitchment of our
intelligence by language.]"
> Now, that is not as easy as it might sound. It's not an easy thing to
> unknow those truths which we hold to be self evident. It takes practice.
Practice is no good here. It is not possible to "unknow" everything. You
cannot doubt your name, for instance -- the existence of chairs, books, that
1 + 1 = 2, and so on . . . It just doesn't make sense to do so. "[Doubt
only makes sense against a massive background of belief.]"
> But fortunately, for those of us who (like Wittgenstein) are confused by
> our own understanding, we have those who really don't know to guide us.
Bah! -- Confused by our own understanding? What does this mean?
> I don't think Socrates went among the ordinary people of Athens to teach
> wisdom, I think he went among them to learn ignorance.
>
Being an expert, I'm sure he was a great teacher...=P
> In conclusion I think that creating an alt.philosophy.novice group would
> be, as Wittgenstein might say, "a frightful waste of time." Nobody
> should consider themselves unworthy to post here. This already is a
> novice group - and that is exactly how it should be.
>
I drew the same conclusion, more or less, but probably by different means
and with a different sense.
As an aside: How much have you actually studied Wittgenstein? I find it
amazing that one could understand Wittgenstein well and think Socrates even
a competent thinker.
MoP
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
Because he was that to. There is much evidence that only part of Plato's
Socrates was the real Socrates, the rest Plato put in Socrates mouth.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Court
> > > > room procedures of another time might look strange to a socialist
view
> > of
> > > > one size fits all. Good thing they lost and we all differ a bit in
> what
> > we
> > > > like.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What the hell do you keep talking about with socialism? Are you
> confusing
> > > this thread with another? There is nothing here that has anything to
do
> > > with socialism.
> > >
> >
> > Alright, alright, Im just jokin' man [kinda].
> >
>
>
>
>
> Well, unfortunately, you're the only one who is getting the joke...=\
>
Suck me you lill' bitch.
No.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> > > > > > shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political
> talk.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However, the
> > > > > 'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite
often.
> > > > > Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most
> confused.
> > > I
> > > > > find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact,
that
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > still be paying much attention to the Republic.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > party on dude i am all fer ya if yer likes it loc.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Piece of advice: Post sober, at least occasionally.
> > >
> >
> > Never could drink alchohal really.
> >
>
>
>
>
> You seem to be experiencing the effects, nonetheless...=P
>
Your pissing in the wind here. What are you angry at kid?
I never Plonked one person into my kill file yet but if you keep talking
bullshit that aint worth the txt you'll be the first. But there is hope if
your point was stated clearly. I was just expressing my opinions about the
Vienna Circle.
>
Myriad of Pain
Plato was against those same Sophists, and he liked his teacher, Socrates,
very much. So how is it that you think Plato was 'demonizing' Socrates, as
it were, by 'summarizing into him the lawyers of his time'? This just
doesn't make sense, at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Court
> > > > > room procedures of another time might look strange to a socialist
> view
> > > of
> > > > > one size fits all. Good thing they lost and we all differ a bit in
> > what
> > > we
> > > > > like.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What the hell do you keep talking about with socialism? Are you
> > confusing
> > > > this thread with another? There is nothing here that has anything
to
> do
> > > > with socialism.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Alright, alright, Im just jokin' man [kinda].
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, unfortunately, you're the only one who is getting the joke...=\
> >
>
> Suck me you lill' bitch.
>
Ha! -- The only worthwhile content I've seen you post so far! It says
something profound about you...
You probably meant "yes". Otherwise, if you didn't mind clarifying, I'd
think you would do so.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> > > > > > > shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most political
> > talk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However,
the
> > > > > > 'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite
> often.
> > > > > > Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most
> > confused.
> > > > I
> > > > > > find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact,
> that
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > still be paying much attention to the Republic.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > party on dude i am all fer ya if yer likes it loc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Piece of advice: Post sober, at least occasionally.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Never could drink alchohal really.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You seem to be experiencing the effects, nonetheless...=P
> >
>
> Your pissing in the wind here. What are you angry at kid?
>
Angry? -- I'm not angry. Kid? No matter -- If you want to be
intellectually bested by a "kid", so be it . . .
Talking bullshit? You're the slow-witted goon who cannot but fail to string
together a coherent post! You imply that Wittgenstein was in error here or
there, I counter that I'd like to know where, you abstain from saying, I
suggest that perhaps you don't understand his philosophy if you think that
he is in error, you ask *me* how much *you* actually know about
Wittgenstein, I point out that it makes little sense that I should know what
you know without you telling me, and now *I'm* talking bullshit?! -- Plonk
me, you dumb sonofabitch! Not having to tolerate you responding to my posts
would be a great benefit to me. The loss is to the perpetuation of your own
ignorance!
> But there is hope if
> your point was stated clearly.
Hope for what if what point was stated clearly?! To the crowd: Does anybody
have a clue wtf this guy is talking about?!
> I was just expressing my opinions about the
> Vienna Circle.
>
Which was not at all relevant to the topic at hand. You posted regarding
Wittgenstein, and then you mean to tell me you just drifted into talking
about the Vienna Circle? And you wonder why I'm frustrated?! My guess is
that you are very unclear about Wittgenstein's relation to the Vienna
Circle. You probably thought it was something that it was not, and you
thought you'd seem 'smart' to pretend to know something that you thought I
wouldn't. In the end, you actually have put your own foot in your mouth and
have descended into childish threats and back-pedaling.
so why don't you just grow up, "kid"?
MoP
> >
>
>
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
This is my opinion about it. The times are reflected or projected onto it.
These lawyers are really where all these reasoning methods came from. Plato
just chronicled the "greatest hits"
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Court
> > > > > > room procedures of another time might look strange to a
socialist
> > view
> > > > of
> > > > > > one size fits all. Good thing they lost and we all differ a bit
in
> > > what
> > > > we
> > > > > > like.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What the hell do you keep talking about with socialism? Are you
> > > confusing
> > > > > this thread with another? There is nothing here that has anything
> to
> > do
> > > > > with socialism.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alright, alright, Im just jokin' man [kinda].
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, unfortunately, you're the only one who is getting the joke...=\
> > >
> >
> > Suck me you lill' bitch.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Ha! -- The only worthwhile content I've seen you post so far! It says
> something profound about you...
>
Thank you, and sorry I said it.
I don't "mind" clarifying it and said so. Did "want" me to clarify it? It
was just a moment of humerous opportunity. Socrate is responsible for more
of Western Civilization than most other philosophers. The concepts are
worked out in plain examples that anyone can understand. Plato created
philosophical literature and much influenced all literature after.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I suppose there is not much for the math but look on any
> > > > > > > > shelf and there be the republic reffered to in most
political
> > > talk.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure I 'get' you in regards to the 'math' point. However,
> the
> > > > > > > 'political talk' no doubt does mention Plato's Republic quite
> > often.
> > > > > > > Consider, though, that 'political talk' is often of the most
> > > confused.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > find it a point against the value of 'politcal talk', in fact,
> > that
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > still be paying much attention to the Republic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > party on dude i am all fer ya if yer likes it loc.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Piece of advice: Post sober, at least occasionally.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Never could drink alchohal really.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You seem to be experiencing the effects, nonetheless...=P
> > >
> >
> > Your pissing in the wind here. What are you angry at kid?
> >
>
>
>
>
> Angry? -- I'm not angry. Kid? No matter -- If you want to be
> intellectually bested by a "kid", so be it . . .
>
Not angry just hangin' around mouthy shovy people, sorry. I am not into a
besting game anyway but trying to create philosophy while you seem to want
everyone to talk about the history of philosophy.
All I said was that Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle were socialist
tending. Then you reacted and I played. If you want perfect grammar go to
school, this is the coffe house talking area. We don't take tests here. Some
of my favorite scientists were from the Soviet Union who discovered many
systems theories that were suppressed till the breakup.
>
>
>
> > But there is hope if
> > your point was stated clearly.
>
>
>
> Hope for what if what point was stated clearly?! To the crowd: Does
anybody
> have a clue why I beat my meat in public?!
>
>
>
> > I was just expressing my opinions about the
> > Vienna Circle.
> >
>
>
>
> Which was not at all relevant to the topic at hand. You posted regarding
> Wittgenstein, and then you mean to tell me you just drifted into talking
> about the Vienna Circle? And you wonder why I'm frustrated?! My guess is
> that you are very unclear about Wittgenstein's relation to the Vienna
> Circle. You probably thought it was something that it was not, and you
> thought you'd seem 'smart' to pretend to know something that you thought I
> wouldn't. In the end, you actually have put your own foot in your mouth
and
> have descended into childish threats and back-pedaling.
>
> so why don't you just grow up, "kid"?
>
> MoP
>
Sorry I mistook you for a kid since you were behaving like some of the kids
we run across here once in a while. Actually I was reading an old philosophy
book that mentioned this connection and was expressing an opinion not
expecting to get graded on it. I will try and find it again and scan it up.
How am I unclear about Wittgenstein's relation to the Vienna Circle? Please
explain his relation the Vienna Circle as you know it then to show how I am
wrong while I scan the text when I find it. The times helped me notice this
aspect when I came across it. We don'ts gits paid to type here so don't
expect a perfect paper.
>
>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Myriad of Pain
Hmm... I guess that helps me make a bit of sense of what you're trying to
say, though I'm not sure what work this distinction does. As a matter of
fact, Socrates was not a lawyer, and it wasn't only lawyers in the Greek
culture that used reason. I see your point as being that Socrates was
reacting against the Sophism of his time, and that might be a worthwhile
theory. However, as a philosophical theory (forgetting Wittgenstein for a
moment...>=]), I'm not sure what bearing it has on Socrates as being a
competent philosopher. That is to say, theorizing about how certain
'things' may be reactions against other 'things' says little about the value
of Socrates. But, that doesn't mean that it isn't an interesting and
worthwhile endeavor.
Heh heh... Well, then I'll apologize in advance for what I said to you
below...=P
I don't think it was inappropriate for me to phrase my desire in the terms
that I did.
> It
> was just a moment of humerous opportunity. Socrate is responsible for more
> of Western Civilization than most other philosophers. The concepts are
> worked out in plain examples that anyone can understand. Plato created
> philosophical literature and much influenced all literature after.
>
Hmm... I'm not sure how much that clarifies things in my mind. Anyway,
yes, all of the West is largely influenced by the Greek culture as a whole.
However, I'm not clear on what bearing this should have on whether Socrates
'insights' were worthwhile or worthless.
On the contrary, I'm not terribly interested in discussing the history of
philosophy. In fact, I'm probably more terribly uninterested in such an
endeavor. You, on the other hand, were seemingly springing to Socrates'
defense. As far as the "besting game", the only way I've been able to make
sense of this part of the thread is to assume that you stepped into this
hoping to look 'bright' and are now struggling to avoid any worthwhile
conversation related to what you said in 'stepping in'. That's just the
working hypothesis, though -- feel free to prove me wrong by showing me how
all of this had a point from the start that was not what I have suggested it
was.
So, in other words, you attempted to 'bait' me with irrelevant claims and
"[playfully]" screw away time. Sounds like you were trolling to me. Well,
either you were trolling, or I was correct in my first estimation. If
rather than having "played", you would have actually tried to substantiate
Wittgenstein's "socialist tending[s]", then perhaps the conversation would
have been more interesting. Which makes you either very bad at conversation
for very inclined toward being a troll.
> If you want perfect grammar go to
> school, this is the coffe house talking area. We don't take tests here.
There was never an issue of perfection, only coherence. When I talk in
coffee houses, I don't do so by uttering random things in an unintelligible
fashion. I think most people are like me in this.
> Some
> of my favorite scientists were from the Soviet Union who discovered many
> systems theories that were suppressed till the breakup.
>
Okay.
I challenge you to cite some evidence supporting my "behaving like some of
the kids" you've run across in here. And don't go citing my retaliation
against your own childish remarks. I post in here with the understanding
that once the conversation is irrecoverable, I will indulge in a bit of
tit-for-tat. It is part of the fun. However, I make a point not to start
it -- well, often, anyway...
> How am I unclear about Wittgenstein's relation to the Vienna Circle?
Well, I'm not clear on what your take on this is -- that is part of the
problem here.
> Please
> explain his relation the Vienna Circle as you know it then to show how I
am
> wrong while I scan the text when I find it. The times helped me notice
this
> aspect when I came across it. We don'ts gits paid to type here so don't
> expect a perfect paper.
>
His relation to the Vienna Circle, in brief, was via his only published
work, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Moritz Schlick, the "leader" of
the vienna Circle, was a fan of Wittgenstein's, and the book took off within
the circle. Wittgenstein was never a member of the circle, but Schlick did
convince him to meet with him, along with Waismann, I believe, and another
member or two of the Circle. To make a long story short, the Vienna Circle
misunderstood the Tractatus, and thus found the meetings with Wittgenstein
often to be very odd. For example, Wittgenstein was known to insist on
reading poetry at some of their visits. Obviously, the reading of poetry
wasn't tops on the list of things to do for the hardcore scientist types
that made up the group, so you can imagine that it was probably a very
amusing scene.
In short: L.W. was never a logical positivist (though he may have been more
sympathetic with some of their claims than he was with others). Also,
whatever sympathy he had with anything they meant to do, at least
philosophically, seemed to more or less die with the onslaught of his later
work culminating in the posthumously published Philosophical Investigations.
Philosophically, I cannot prove it, but I would be very, very surprised if
Wittgenstein advocated any particular form of business, government, economy,
etc. Certainly, if he did, it would seem inconsistent with both of his
philosophies. The first made value judgments impossible, and the second
made them excusively normative.
MoP
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
I have seen text on this in a few "history of ideas" books. They are very
similar to philosophy books and I shift back and forth between actual
philosophy histories and intellectual histories. When reading history of
philosophy books they are like summaries, a way to remember stuff learned
long ago. But Intellectual histories of ideas are much broader speaking of
influences on philosophers and other important people and speaking of
influences on culture by them. I have been dwelling on the best "history of
ideas" books lately so it gets rather general while seeing things in their
times.
True, I was defending Socrates. It's a matter of taste I suppose.
I will look more deeply into this W thing and the tension between influences
upon him from British philosophy and Austrian socialists. Thanks for the
clues you have given.
But I don't appreciate anyone telling me how to talk in the coffe house but
I respect your point. And yes I am a troll when I feel like it but not
usually. I was actually curious about this anti-Socrates thing, I think he
was one the greatest philosophers but thats a matter of art and taste. I
respect your description of your taste and would not want to appear to be
prescribing Socrates to you. And what is the proper etiquite about entering
conversations, I mean are you supposed to just know the rules or do you have
a link to the rules? Each comment can become it's own thread so there is
plenty of room for entering.
Could you explain why Wittgenstein thought Socrates a waste of time.
>
>
Immortalist
there is much more along these lines. This tends to support the blured
positions. I can see how in the history of ideas we confuse people with the
impressions others have and create about them to support their own
philosophy or misinterpretation. And how others who see it enough might
believe it:
....A recurring, Hegelian sense of Wittgenstein as a kind of cipher
reflecting essential features of twentieth century history and culture
[...has led some to use certain facts about his life as a springboard for
preposterous claims about twentieth century history...] —I think of
Kimberley Cornish’s The Jew Of Linz, which sees the ideology of National
Socialism as the natural inheritance of Wittgenstein’s supposed “mental
socialism”, the clash between Hitler and Stalin as the indirect outcome of a
boyhood encounter between Hitler and Wittgenstein at Realschule, and
Wittgenstein’s Tolstoyian notion of emigration to Russia in the 1930’s as
the activities of a master Cambridge spy...
Here is an socialist site in which I suppose this construal of W into and
"for" later philosophies is illustrated and shows the confusion general
histories of ideas might trip on[and one's who read to many of them]:
http://www.friesian.com/wittgen.htm
http://www.friesian.com/austrian.htm
.....................................
...Socrates raises the moral and philosophical questions that are historical
precursors to the questions every student of law and legal studies
confronts: what do lawyers do and how can it be justified within the larger
moral universe in which all "practices" and "local knowledge" must be
judged? How can we justify the way we live and the culture we embrace?
Two Socratic dialogues most relevant to Practical Moral Philosophy for
Lawyers are Protagoras & Gorgias. ...the opening sections in the Protagoras.
Practical Moral Philosophy for Lawyers
Socrates and the Socratic Method:
http://tinyurl.com/9jp1
Do you think the "tensions" W went through with wars and regions and
inter-regional viewpoint clashes, might have influenced his desire to remove
all valuation for the sake of communicating in these environments?
Paul Sinnett
>>> frightful waste of time!" -- Wittgenstein
>>
>> I think Wittgenstein was commenting more on Plato than he was on
>> Socrates.
>
> In the sense that we know of Socrates through Plato, possibly -- In
> the sense that our best knowledge of Socrates' actual beliefs would
> probably show Socrates' beliefs to be okay with L.W., probably not.
Since we cannot really know Socrates' beliefs what can we possibly say
about them? "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." --
Wittgenstein.
>> Plato was using Socrates as a device to present his own views about
>> philosophical subjects. As such, Plato was not only providing both
>> sides of the conversation but acting as judge on the value of
>> those arguments.
> That is true, to a point. There are certain dialogues that are
> probably very accurate. Oddly enough, the names of the dialogues are
> evading me... Anyway, the one where Socrates is on trial, for
> example, is usually thought to be a near exact transcription of
> Socrates' actual words. The reason is because so many people were
> present, and Plato couldn't have gotten away with much omission or
> addition.
What is your source for this assertion?
"So in the Apology there is an ideal rather than a literal truth; much
is said which was not said, and is only Plato's view of the situation.
Plato was not, like Xenophon, a chronicler of facts; he does not appear
in any of his writings to have aimed at literal accuracy. He is not
therefore to be supplemented from the Memorabilia and Symposium of
Xenophon, who belongs to an entirely different class of writers. The
Apology of Plato is not the report of what Socrates said, but an
elaborate composition, quite as much so in fact as one of the
Dialogues." -- Benjamin Jowett's introduction to the one where Socrates
is on trial.
>> Socrates himself spent his time talking to real people and let them
>> be the judge. I suspect he
> "[H]e", meaning L.W., here?
>> also would have considered invented
>> conversations for the purpose of teaching "a frightful waste of
>> time." I base my suspicion on the evidence that he didn't spend his
>> life doing that.
No. "He" means Socrates in all cases there.
> Hmm... I may be mis-reading you here, but it sounds like you're
> suggesting that Wittgenstein was only against the use of contrived
> discussions for teaching philosophy. If that is what you're saying,
> then it is completely wrong. Consider that Wittgenstein, himself,
> frequently makes use of an interlocutor in his own writings,
> particularly the Philosophical Investigations.
No. I'm saying that Wittgenstein's remark about the dialogues applies to
Plato but not necessarily to Socrates.
> I think what L.W.'s problem was was with the confusion that is
> obvious in the Socratic dialogue's. For example, in PI, L.W. quotes
> a piece from the Thaetetus (sp?) that goes something like:
>
> "[S: If one is thinking, then he must be thinking of *something*,
> right? "I: Yes, certainly. "S: And that something must also be real,
> mustn't it? "I: Yes, certainly.]"
>
> Then L.W. says something like: "[And if a painter paints, he must be
> painting *something*, and that 'something' must be real! However, is
> that something the thing that is painted on the canvas -- say the
> image of a man -- or the man that the image refers to?]"
>
> This doesn't look much like a critique of the dialectical method...
But as I said, this is Plato. Socrates, unlike Plato, turned away from
esoteric discussions like the above:
"Indeed, in contrast to others he set his face against all discussion of
such high matters as the nature of the Universe; how the 'kosmos,' as
the sophists phrase it, came into being; or by what forces the celestial
phenomena arise." -- Xenophon, the Memorabilia.
>> Wittgenstein considered philosophical questions to be horrendously
>> tangled knots of confusion: "Why is philosophy so complicated? It
>> ought to be entirely simple. Philosophy unties the knots in our
>> thinking that we have, in a senseless way, put there. To do this it
>> must make movements that are just as complicated as these knots.
>> Although the result of philosophy is simple, its method cannot be
>> if it is to succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not a
>> complexity of its subject matter, but of our knotted
>> understanding."
> Could you give a citation for this quote? It is one that I like, yet
> I cannot recall where it is from.
I copied it from a biography - there isn't a citation for it. Sorry.
>> I think he was wrong to conclude that our method must be complex.
>> If our confusion over philosophical questions is caused by our
>> accumulated attempts to understand them then we could, like
>> Wittgenstein, spend our lives attempting to remove this confusion.
> I'm not clear on what you mean to get at here. You seem to start
> with a conclusion, then follow with what I suppose is a premise meant
> to support it. However, the rest of the paragraph, below, seems to
> break from this.
>
> Please clarify -- particularly: Why do you think the method need not
> be complex?
Because there is an alternative that is not complex.
>> I think there is an alternative solution to a knotted
>> understanding. It is the solution that Socrates advocated: "know
>> that we know nothing." If we begin from a position of ignorance we
>> cannot be confused by our own understanding.
> To say that we "know nothing" is to misunderstand the grammar of
> "know". There are a lot of things we "know", and there are a lot of
> things that simply "stand fast" for us. That chairs exist, for
> example, is something that stands fast. For Socrates to limit the
> grammar of "know", as he did, is to confine the concept in such a way
> that we are not comfortable with it. I could go on . . .
>
> Bottomline: Socrates was simply confused.
>
> Wittgenstein: "[Philosophy is our defense against the bewitchment of
> our intelligence by language.]"
Confused or not, Wittgenstein neatly sums up Socrates' life as a
philosopher in that statement. Socrates was Athens' defence against the
bewitching of their intelligence by the sophists with sophist language.
He taught the Athenians such that even the children could not be
bamboozled by the most bigoted sophist. And for that crime,
"corruption of the young," they arranged to have him killed.
>> But fortunately, for those of us who (like Wittgenstein) are
>> confused by our own understanding, we have those who really don't
>> know to guide us.
> Bah! -- Confused by our own understanding? What does this mean?
I suggest it means no more or less than bewitched by our language. Or if
not, what is the difference?
> As an aside: How much have you actually studied Wittgenstein? I find
> it amazing that one could understand Wittgenstein well and think
> Socrates even a competent thinker.
It would be amazing if we had enough of Socrates' thought to make a
judgement like that.
Myriad of Pain
>
<snip>
Gimme a bit to respond to these. It shouldn't be more than a day or two. I
would respond now, but I'm trying to finish up a project that really needs
to be completed as soon as possible. Hopefully, tomorrow or the next day I
will have a chance to respond to your two posts. Be sure to check back,
though, because I do intend to respond and am known to follow through on my
intentions...=)
Regards,
MoP
P.S. - I'll also need the time to figure out how best to explain why I think
Wittgenstein thought the Socratic dialogues to be a waste of time! That is
likely a point that you will not be perfectly clear on until you've
undertaken a rather significant study of Wittgenstein on your own, but I can
probably shed enough light so that you'll have an idea of what is going on
there.
Immortalist
> > "Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful
> > waste of time!" -- Wittgenstein
>
> I think Wittgenstein was commenting more on Plato than he was on
> Socrates. Plato was using Socrates as a device to present his own views
> about philosophical subjects. As such, Plato was not only providing both
> sides of the conversation but acting as judge on the value of those
> arguments.
>
> Socrates himself spent his time talking to real people and let them be
> the judge. I suspect he also would have considered invented
> conversations for the purpose of teaching "a frightful waste of time." I
> base my suspicion on the evidence that he didn't spend his life doing
that.
>
> I think creating an alt.philosophy.novice group would be doing a
> dis-service to the subject of philosophy.
>
> Wittgenstein considered philosophical questions to be horrendously
> tangled knots of confusion: "Why is philosophy so complicated? It ought
> to be entirely simple. Philosophy unties the knots in our thinking that
> we have, in a senseless way, put there. To do this it must make
> movements that are just as complicated as these knots. Although the
> result of philosophy is simple, its method cannot be if it is to
> succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not a complexity of its subject
> matter, but of our knotted understanding."
>
Good point but does it reflect W's influences from travels and
communications with extremely different individuals with different
philosophies. Even Marx acknowledge complexity when he noted the substance
of water has no bearing on the different organizational arrangements, when
he said, "increase the temperature one degree and the water begins to boil."
Was this a conflict between substance/pattern or structure/organization and
the desire to reduce them to substance and or structure?
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:v9n342f...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> <snip>
>
> Gimme a bit to respond to these. It shouldn't be more than a day or two.
I
> would respond now, but I'm trying to finish up a project that really needs
> to be completed as soon as possible. Hopefully, tomorrow or the next day
I
> will have a chance to respond to your two posts. Be sure to check back,
> though, because I do intend to respond and am known to follow through on
my
> intentions...=)
>
Those were just a couple of links found on a quick search hardly a
dissertaion on the conflick between W's internal views and the times he be
in.
> Regards,
> MoP
>
> P.S. - I'll also need the time to figure out how best to explain why I
think
> Wittgenstein thought the Socratic dialogues to be a waste of time! That
is
> likely a point that you will not be perfectly clear on until you've
> undertaken a rather significant study of Wittgenstein on your own, but I
can
> probably shed enough light so that you'll have an idea of what is going on
> there.
>
I was just reading a nearby sub-thread that seemed to say that W himself
admited to say something about Plato or Socrates would be an incorrect
valuation by his own reductionist standards.
As for a "significant study of Wittgenstein" at this point in my life it's
all a matter of review and forgetting more than most learn. This is one of
the features I like about these news groups, when you know you knew, then
forgot, and then said, the arousal factor of not remembering right, can
create a better cementing of memory and resist reconstructive
interconnections of knowledge to fit into the network of knowledge having to
accomodate everything learned since then.
But your valuation of what I know or don't know about W seems to disregard
the possibility that I new it all at least a few times but have since
confused the memories with better evidence since those expert times.
peace.
>
Myriad of Pain
>
<snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > > How am I unclear about Wittgenstein's relation to the Vienna Circle?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, I'm not clear on what your take on this is -- that is part of the
> > problem here.
> >
>
> I have seen text on this in a few "history of ideas" books. They are very
> similar to philosophy books and I shift back and forth between actual
> philosophy histories and intellectual histories. When reading history of
> philosophy books they are like summaries, a way to remember stuff learned
> long ago. But Intellectual histories of ideas are much broader speaking of
> influences on philosophers and other important people and speaking of
> influences on culture by them. I have been dwelling on the best "history
of
> ideas" books lately so it gets rather general while seeing things in their
> times.
>
Would these make good reference books, or are they more for reading through,
cover to cover? Mind sharing the ISBN numbers? They sound interesting in
any case.
You're welcome. I'd be interested in seeing what you find. A post to the
group will be sufficient, of course.
> But I don't appreciate anyone telling me how to talk in the coffe house
but
> I respect your point.
Eh, talk any way you want -- just don't expect my best if I don't understand
what you're trying to say...=P
> And yes I am a troll when I feel like it but not
> usually.
Some people here deserve to be trolled.
> I was actually curious about this anti-Socrates thing, I think he
> was one the greatest philosophers but thats a matter of art and taste. I
> respect your description of your taste and would not want to appear to be
> prescribing Socrates to you. And what is the proper etiquite about
entering
> conversations, I mean are you supposed to just know the rules or do you
have
> a link to the rules? Each comment can become it's own thread so there is
> plenty of room for entering.
>
> Could you explain why Wittgenstein thought Socrates a waste of time.
>
As I suggested in the previous post, I can try, but you'll probably need to
undertake a bit of a study of Wittgenstein yourself before you can get very
clear on this. But, here goes the summary version:
In Wittgenstein's later philosophy, he suggested that the best way to get
clear about philosophical issues was to look carefully at the grammar of the
relevant concepts -- that is: how we use them in every day discourse. He
suggested that any sort of theoretical approach would be artificially
limiting and would do no more than lead to confusion. In this vein, much of
what Socrates asks is regarded as mere confusion. For example, questions
like 'What is meaning?', 'What is good?', 'What is a proposition?', etc. can
lead to philosophical confusion. Socrates was a master at delving into this
confusion -- from a Wittgensteinian perspective, of course -- and, as a
result, Wittgenstein didn't find the Socratic dialogues to be very
worthwhile, at all.
Is that somewhat clear, I hope? Feel free to ask questions; I think I know
L.W. well enough to be able to field them at least well enough to give you
the right picture. Though you'll have to forgive me if I'm slow to respond
over the coming days and weeks.
MoP
>
> >
> >
>
>
Myriad of Pain
> Just poking around for a moment on the web and found a couple of things
but
> there is much more along these lines. This tends to support the blured
> positions. I can see how in the history of ideas we confuse people with
the
> impressions others have and create about them to support their own
> philosophy or misinterpretation. And how others who see it enough might
> believe it:
>
> ....A recurring, Hegelian sense of Wittgenstein as a kind of cipher
> reflecting essential features of twentieth century history and culture
> [...has led some to use certain facts about his life as a springboard for
> Kimberley Cornish's The Jew Of Linz, which sees the ideology of National
> Socialism as the natural inheritance of Wittgenstein's supposed "mental
> socialism", the clash between Hitler and Stalin as the indirect outcome of
a
> boyhood encounter between Hitler and Wittgenstein at Realschule, and
> Wittgenstein's Tolstoyian notion of emigration to Russia in the 1930's as
> the activities of a master Cambridge spy...
>
Yeah... That all sounds very weird to me, and I'm not sure what to make of
it...=)
> http://tinyurl.com/9jpm
>
> Here is an socialist site in which I suppose this construal of W into and
> "for" later philosophies is illustrated and shows the confusion general
> histories of ideas might trip on[and one's who read to many of them]:
>
> http://www.friesian.com/wittgen.htm
> http://www.friesian.com/austrian.htm
>
Thanks for the links. Admittedly, I don't have time to go to them just yet,
but I'll keep them filed away for reference.
> .....................................
>
> ...Socrates raises the moral and philosophical questions that are
historical
> precursors to the questions every student of law and legal studies
> confronts: what do lawyers do and how can it be justified within the
larger
> moral universe in which all "practices" and "local knowledge" must be
> judged? How can we justify the way we live and the culture we embrace?
>
> Two Socratic dialogues most relevant to Practical Moral Philosophy for
> Lawyers are Protagoras & Gorgias. ...the opening sections in the
Protagoras.
>
> Practical Moral Philosophy for Lawyers
> Socrates and the Socratic Method:
> http://tinyurl.com/9jp1
>
Interesting way to take Socrates. I'm not sure what I think of it, as far
as that sort of thing goes. I certainly doubt that that was in any way the
actual aim of Plato or Socrates. However, it is an interesting point that
Socrates does serve as a critic against lawyers. I don't know -- I'm not
sure where this goes, what work it does. Something to think about,
nonetheless, and I gather that it is in the same vein as what you were
saying previously?
> Do you think the "tensions" W went through with wars and regions and
> inter-regional viewpoint clashes, might have influenced his desire to
remove
> all valuation for the sake of communicating in these environments?
Well, if I read you right here, it sounds like you're suggesting that
Wittgenstein disallowed for any value judgments. This isn't exactly true.
In his Tractatus days, he did this, certainly. Though, unlike the Logical
Postivists, Wittgenstein was not happy to see this branch of human existence
tossed aside, as it were. He said of his Tractatus: "[the Tractatus is
really two books: what is written in its pages and everything else -- the
latter is the most important]". The point, of course, being that he had a
'soft spot' for axiology, to put it generally.
In his later philosophy, Wittgenstein did not say a great deal about
axiological claims. However, I think one can get a clear picture on what he
saw their significance to be. In my reading of Wittgenstein, I've gotten
the impression that he does not do away with axiology in his later
philosophy. Instead, he suggests that the best way to get clear about our,
say, ethical and aesthetic language-games, we must look at how they actually
function. So, for Wittgenstein, ethics, for example, I think, would be no
more than a description of what we call ethical belief and behavior in human
societies. For Wittgenstein, though, this stuff isn't just a bunch of crap.
It is significant, and we each have very passionate positions. However, he
does feel that the notion of theorizing our way, philosophically, into a
clear understanding of 'the good' is impossible and will lead to only
confusion.
Now, do I think his experience with various cultures and what-not influenced
this sort of take? I really do not. As a matter of fact, Wittgenstein was
rather aristocratic and 'uppity', it seemed. Which brings up an important
point. Wittgenstein's later position in regard to ethics is often thought
to be relativistic. However, I do not think that that is quite fair. For
Wittgenstein, the point is that there are varying ethical belief systems
that may or may not be wholly compatible It isn't possible, if they are
incompatible, to argue for one's superiority over the other. But this does
not mean that everyone's is just as good as everyone else's. Rather,
various ethical claims would be considered grammatical/normative claims and
would constitute the rules of a related, but different language-game.
Hence, if I'm playing ethical language-game 'A', then, for me, 'A' is right,
not just 'just as good as the rest'.
Anyway, the clearest way, I think, to see what Wittgenstein actually did
with all of this is to look toward an accurate description of how various
ethical systems actually function -- not philosophical theories, mind you,
but what we would call ethical behavior and beliefs in actual practice.
Perhaps he did come to this position somewhat from the realization that
different cultures do things very differently, but I don't think the desire
to communicate effectively played a role at all. Consider, for example,
that he was known to say things like "[When I speak to other intellectuals I
prostitute my mind]." The point being, L.W. didn't always seem to be all
that concerned with communicating in his various environments...=)
well, I hope that is clear enough.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
>
> "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> news:ZtOma.540$8c4...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:v9n342f...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Gimme a bit to respond to these. It shouldn't be more than a day or
two.
> I
> > would respond now, but I'm trying to finish up a project that really
needs
> > to be completed as soon as possible. Hopefully, tomorrow or the next
day
> I
> > will have a chance to respond to your two posts. Be sure to check back,
> > though, because I do intend to respond and am known to follow through on
> my
> > intentions...=)
> >
>
> Those were just a couple of links found on a quick search hardly a
> dissertaion on the conflick between W's internal views and the times he be
> in.
>
Perhaps so, but you also asked a question. I try not to just drop a bunch
of BS when someone asks me a factual question about something I claim to
know to some degree. Hopefully, what I wrote was worth the wait, but it
wasn't as thorough as I would have liked.
> > Regards,
> > MoP
> >
> > P.S. - I'll also need the time to figure out how best to explain why I
> think
> > Wittgenstein thought the Socratic dialogues to be a waste of time! That
> is
> > likely a point that you will not be perfectly clear on until you've
> > undertaken a rather significant study of Wittgenstein on your own, but I
> can
> > probably shed enough light so that you'll have an idea of what is going
on
> > there.
> >
>
> I was just reading a nearby sub-thread that seemed to say that W himself
> admited to say something about Plato or Socrates would be an incorrect
> valuation by his own reductionist standards.
>
I haven't seen that thread yet. If I do, I will most likely respond to it.
As you summarize it, it doesn't sound right to me.
> As for a "significant study of Wittgenstein" at this point in my life it's
> all a matter of review and forgetting more than most learn. This is one of
> the features I like about these news groups, when you know you knew, then
> forgot, and then said, the arousal factor of not remembering right, can
> create a better cementing of memory and resist reconstructive
> interconnections of knowledge to fit into the network of knowledge having
to
> accomodate everything learned since then.
>
That's very odd, indeed!
> But your valuation of what I know or don't know about W seems to disregard
> the possibility that I new it all at least a few times but have since
> confused the memories with better evidence since those expert times.
>
Well, I do disregard it. Perhaps, if you knew this before, your memory will
be jogged -- very well. However, until then, you seem to have forgotten
some things that you'll need to remember before you really get some of this
stuff...=P Besides, I wasn't meaning to be an elitist bastard in regard to
Wittgenstein scholarship. If anything, take it to be a limitation on my
part, in terms of being able to adequately explain and thoroughly answer
questions.
> peace.
>
I hope so...=)
MoP
> >
>
>
Myriad of Pain
> Myriad of Pain wrote:
> > "Paul Sinnett" <paul.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>> "Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a
> >>> frightful waste of time!" -- Wittgenstein
> >>
> >> I think Wittgenstein was commenting more on Plato than he was on
> >> Socrates.
> >
> > In the sense that we know of Socrates through Plato, possibly -- In
> > the sense that our best knowledge of Socrates' actual beliefs would
> > probably show Socrates' beliefs to be okay with L.W., probably not.
>
> Since we cannot really know Socrates' beliefs what can we possibly say
> about them?
Can nothing count for 'knowing his beliefs'? Certainly, everyday people
talk about Socrates, his life, his beliefs, and so on. He is part real,
part character in Plato's dialogues, but don't we speak of characters having
beliefs?
> "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." --
> Wittgenstein.
You quote his early philosophy of the Tractatus. The quote isn't pertinent
here, regardless, though. We are able to speak of Socrates' beliefs -- as
we know them, granted, but that is how we do that.
>
> >> Plato was using Socrates as a device to present his own views about
> >> philosophical subjects. As such, Plato was not only providing both
> >> sides of the conversation but acting as judge on the value of
> >> those arguments.
>
> > That is true, to a point. There are certain dialogues that are
> > probably very accurate. Oddly enough, the names of the dialogues are
> > evading me... Anyway, the one where Socrates is on trial, for
> > example, is usually thought to be a near exact transcription of
> > Socrates' actual words. The reason is because so many people were
> > present, and Plato couldn't have gotten away with much omission or
> > addition.
>
> What is your source for this assertion?
>
Hmm... It was a professor whose lecture I sat in on a few times. As I
recall, though, I didn't respect him much, so perhaps I shall better regard
your quote below...=) I'm sure I have heard elsewhere that the Apology --
that is the one where he defends himself before the people, right? -- may
have been very accurate. The idea, again, was that there were so many
witnesses--it would have been stranger for Plato to misrepresent him here.
Though, I really don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other.
I dislike Greek philosophy and think it a waste of time.
> "So in the Apology there is an ideal rather than a literal truth; much
> is said which was not said, and is only Plato's view of the situation.
> Plato was not, like Xenophon, a chronicler of facts; he does not appear
> in any of his writings to have aimed at literal accuracy. He is not
> therefore to be supplemented from the Memorabilia and Symposium of
> Xenophon, who belongs to an entirely different class of writers. The
> Apology of Plato is not the report of what Socrates said, but an
> elaborate composition, quite as much so in fact as one of the
> Dialogues." -- Benjamin Jowett's introduction to the one where Socrates
> is on trial.
>
Very well. Sounds to be a compelling enough claim for me. As I said, Greek
philosophy isn't my 'bag'.
> >> Socrates himself spent his time talking to real people and let them
> >> be the judge. I suspect he
>
> > "[H]e", meaning L.W., here?
>
> >> also would have considered invented
> >> conversations for the purpose of teaching "a frightful waste of
> >> time." I base my suspicion on the evidence that he didn't spend his
> >> life doing that.
>
> No. "He" means Socrates in all cases there.
>
Oh, that makes sense now. Sometimes I get confused about things on the
newsgroup that seem utterly clear the next day...lol I guess I just don't
read as carefully here as I do elsewhere. Anyway, I don't see that Socrates
would not have valued the dialogues. In fact, he would have probably like
them since they got the 'point' out to more people than his conversations
alone could have. Though, we are only speculating here.
> > Hmm... I may be mis-reading you here, but it sounds like you're
> > suggesting that Wittgenstein was only against the use of contrived
> > discussions for teaching philosophy. If that is what you're saying,
> > then it is completely wrong. Consider that Wittgenstein, himself,
> > frequently makes use of an interlocutor in his own writings,
> > particularly the Philosophical Investigations.
>
> No. I'm saying that Wittgenstein's remark about the dialogues applies to
> Plato but not necessarily to Socrates.
>
But then aren't you saying that L.W. was meaning to criticize the
dialectical method? If so, then, again, consider Wittgenstein's own use of
it. Furthermore, I do not think Wittgenstein's problem was with the
method -- at least not in the sense you suggest. His problem was with the
theoretical attitude Socrates brought to the subject, the confusion that he
absolutely waded in. However, I am speculating a bit here, because I'm not
exactly sure of the context surrounding the original quote of mine.
However, I gather that you too are speculating. If not, please supply the
context. I'd like to see it, anyway, if you happen to know it or are able
to find it.
> > I think what L.W.'s problem was was with the confusion that is
> > obvious in the Socratic dialogue's. For example, in PI, L.W. quotes
> > a piece from the Thaetetus (sp?) that goes something like:
> >
> > "[S: If one is thinking, then he must be thinking of *something*,
> > right? "I: Yes, certainly. "S: And that something must also be real,
> > mustn't it? "I: Yes, certainly.]"
> >
> > Then L.W. says something like: "[And if a painter paints, he must be
> > painting *something*, and that 'something' must be real! However, is
> > that something the thing that is painted on the canvas -- say the
> > image of a man -- or the man that the image refers to?]"
> >
> > This doesn't look much like a critique of the dialectical method...
>
> But as I said, this is Plato. Socrates, unlike Plato, turned away from
> esoteric discussions like the above:
>
> "Indeed, in contrast to others he set his face against all discussion of
> such high matters as the nature of the Universe; how the 'kosmos,' as
> the sophists phrase it, came into being; or by what forces the celestial
> phenomena arise." -- Xenophon, the Memorabilia.
>
It occurs to me that we may be arguing past each other. Wittgenstein was
certainly speaking of the 'Socrates' in the Socratic dialogues. If, indeed,
the 'real' Socrates was vastly different, then perhaps Wittgenstein would
have minded him less, but that is neither here nor there. Furthermore, I
want to add that it is my understanding that the 'real' SOcrates is rather
poorly known. We only have enough to suggest that he was more than a simple
character from Plato's 'stories'. Is that not correct?
> >> Wittgenstein considered philosophical questions to be horrendously
> >> tangled knots of confusion: "Why is philosophy so complicated? It
> >> ought to be entirely simple. Philosophy unties the knots in our
> >> thinking that we have, in a senseless way, put there. To do this it
> >> must make movements that are just as complicated as these knots.
> >> Although the result of philosophy is simple, its method cannot be
> >> if it is to succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not a
> >> complexity of its subject matter, but of our knotted
> >> understanding."
>
> > Could you give a citation for this quote? It is one that I like, yet
> > I cannot recall where it is from.
>
> I copied it from a biography - there isn't a citation for it. Sorry.
>
What biography is it? It may be in my library. I know I have the quote
written somewhere. I have this sudden urge to think that the quote is from
the Blue and Brown Books, but I could be mistaken. Thanks for checking.
> >> I think he was wrong to conclude that our method must be complex.
> >> If our confusion over philosophical questions is caused by our
> >> accumulated attempts to understand them then we could, like
> >> Wittgenstein, spend our lives attempting to remove this confusion.
>
> > I'm not clear on what you mean to get at here. You seem to start
> > with a conclusion, then follow with what I suppose is a premise meant
> > to support it. However, the rest of the paragraph, below, seems to
> > break from this.
> >
> > Please clarify -- particularly: Why do you think the method need not
> > be complex?
>
> Because there is an alternative that is not complex.
>
That doesn't clarify the entire passage a great deal, but let's go from
here. What is this alternative method?
> >> I think there is an alternative solution to a knotted
> >> understanding. It is the solution that Socrates advocated: "know
> >> that we know nothing." If we begin from a position of ignorance we
> >> cannot be confused by our own understanding.
>
> > To say that we "know nothing" is to misunderstand the grammar of
> > "know". There are a lot of things we "know", and there are a lot of
> > things that simply "stand fast" for us. That chairs exist, for
> > example, is something that stands fast. For Socrates to limit the
> > grammar of "know", as he did, is to confine the concept in such a way
> > that we are not comfortable with it. I could go on . . .
> >
> > Bottomline: Socrates was simply confused.
> >
> > Wittgenstein: "[Philosophy is our defense against the bewitchment of
> > our intelligence by language.]"
>
> Confused or not, Wittgenstein neatly sums up Socrates' life as a
> philosopher in that statement. Socrates was Athens' defence against the
> bewitching of their intelligence by the sophists with sophist language.
> He taught the Athenians such that even the children could not be
> bamboozled by the most bigoted sophist. And for that crime,
> "corruption of the young," they arranged to have him killed.
>
THat doesn't sound quite accurate to me. Socrates advocated searching for
truth and not just using rhetoric to win the day in your favor. In his
searches for truth, as I know them mainly through Plato, he regularly became
horribly confused and really looks quite foolish in the process. What he
did and called philosophy was mere empty confusion. He was bewitched by
language, himself, not a clarifier of the grammar of our concepts.
> >> But fortunately, for those of us who (like Wittgenstein) are
> >> confused by our own understanding, we have those who really don't
> >> know to guide us.
>
> > Bah! -- Confused by our own understanding? What does this mean?
>
> I suggest it means no more or less than bewitched by our language. Or if
> not, what is the difference?
>
You mean to suggest that Wittgenstein was confused by language?! Give some
examples of where Wittgenstein was confused by language. Probably even
harder: give some examples where Socrates *isn't* confused by language!
> > As an aside: How much have you actually studied Wittgenstein? I find
> > it amazing that one could understand Wittgenstein well and think
> > Socrates even a competent thinker.
>
> It would be amazing if we had enough of Socrates' thought to make a
> judgement like that.
>
Socrates' thought is usually construed as such from Plato's dialogues. If
you've a better source, then please explain the 'real' Socrates thought and
put it forth in such a way as to argue for its superiority over
Wittgenstein's method.
You keep saying 'Socrates is better' but then you go on to say 'we don't
have a clue what Socrates actuall said or did'. How do you reconcile these?
Also, I guess when I'm talking about Socrates, like most folks, I think, I
am talking about the protagonist of Plato's dialogues. I'm open to another
Socrates, if you'd like to present him, but so far you have not.
MoP
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
Intellectuall histories are mixed in philosophy and history sections mainly
but dispersed in sociology sections greatly to. Here are three I have
checked out from my local library right now and I will get another load of
em' next week. It's beautifal man.
The Modern Mind
An Intellectual History of the 20th Century
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060084383/
An Intellectual History of Modern Europe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0134691067/
The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in
the Twenty-first Century
by Michael Mandelbaum:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1586481347/
Many More than I can count:
http://tinyurl.com/9oco
Yes, we interact and modify, so we each have a vote on the next move.
>
>
> > And yes I am a troll when I feel like it but not
> > usually.
>
>
>
>
> Some people here deserve to be trolled.
>
Last hold outs before the masses discover our little alternative corner
soon.
>
>
>
> > I was actually curious about this anti-Socrates thing, I think he
> > was one the greatest philosophers but thats a matter of art and taste. I
> > respect your description of your taste and would not want to appear to
be
> > prescribing Socrates to you. And what is the proper etiquite about
> entering
> > conversations, I mean are you supposed to just know the rules or do you
> have
> > a link to the rules? Each comment can become it's own thread so there is
> > plenty of room for entering.
> >
> > Could you explain why Wittgenstein thought Socrates a waste of time.
> >
>
>
>
> As I suggested in the previous post, I can try, but you'll probably need
to
> undertake a bit of a study of Wittgenstein yourself before you can get
very
> clear on this. But, here goes the summary version:
>
Been there done that, forgot it, done it again, sceptical of trying again
because of recent developments in systems theory, but I leave open the
possiblity to relearn it again.
> In Wittgenstein's later philosophy, he suggested that the best way to get
> clear about philosophical issues was to look carefully at the grammar of
the
> relevant concepts -- that is: how we use them in every day discourse. He
> suggested that any sort of theoretical approach would be artificially
> limiting and would do no more than lead to confusion. In this vein, much
of
> what Socrates asks is regarded as mere confusion. For example, questions
> like 'What is meaning?', 'What is good?', 'What is a proposition?', etc.
can
> lead to philosophical confusion. Socrates was a master at delving into
this
> confusion -- from a Wittgensteinian perspective, of course -- and, as a
> result, Wittgenstein didn't find the Socratic dialogues to be very
> worthwhile, at all.
>
Did he make a value judgment about Socrates or was he mearly describing
things?
> Is that somewhat clear, I hope? Feel free to ask questions; I think I
know
> L.W. well enough to be able to field them at least well enough to give you
> the right picture. Though you'll have to forgive me if I'm slow to
respond
> over the coming days and weeks.
>
> MoP
I know that feeling and it is cool!
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
I indeed knew W very very well but he has been overritten. Trying to be a
generalist is hard since knowing something of evverything of value is larger
than the human brain.
> However, until then, you seem to have forgotten
> some things that you'll need to remember before you really get some of
this
> stuff...=P Besides, I wasn't meaning to be an elitist bastard in regard
to
> Wittgenstein scholarship. If anything, take it to be a limitation on my
> part, in terms of being able to adequately explain and thoroughly answer
> questions.
>
I repect a firm pride one has for what one knows, roll on bro.
Immortalist
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
Reminds me of how the liberal political correctness germ has spread to the
neo-conservatives, so that we now have two extreme camps of whiners with
proper truths but vain dispersals. Not the last couple of paragraphs though.
>
>