[Pdf/E–pub] Philosophische Untersuchungen
Bout five minutes have passed and we may be right He says that there is no introspectable xperience of time passing or of measuring time But I am not sure if that is right Paul Churchland talks about a pulsing of neuronic signals from the center of the brain to the perimeter and back again This means that our sensory processing choes and reverberates with these pulses and gives us a sense of time passing If we attend to the xperience of this we may be able to discriminate what makes us sensitive to the passage of time and we may be able to do this in a way which can be validated by other people If we are able to make these discriminations through introspection before the science is available to xplain it is it still meaningless That is my rhetorical uestion o my crap what a tortured soul Ludwig Wittgenstein was this guy stared into the impenetrable pitch blackness that was the tangled midnight jungle of his own inner xistence sharpened his machete and plunged in hacking and flailing and lunging wildly he wrestles chiefly with the concepts of language meaning understanding and states of consciousness part I consists of 693 short numbered sections about 4 to a page this was sent to the publisher but pulled back at the last second five years before LW died after he died his further writings were scraped together and comprise part II loosely divided into 13 short sections plus 1 long one there is no steady development but sometimes long chains of remarks on one topic sometimes sudden changes of topic he often puts statements or uestions in uotation marks as though thrown at him by someone playing devil s advocate it is all xtremely personal written very much in the first personthe first half of this book is soooooo much better than the second half i looked in my notebook and found that i jotted 111 notes from the first 120 pages and only 34 from the last 110 pages by the nd i was uite happy for it to be over so maybe it doesn t deserve 5 stars but some of it is uite amazing he concludes the introductionIt 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 I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking But if possible to stimulate someone to thoughts of his ownI should have liked to produce a good book This has not come about but the time is past in which I could improve itjust for that he gets 5 stars from me As a philosopher Wittgenstein isn t terribly systematic rather shocking for an analytic thinker I would argue that he s an original using analytic thought xperiments continental literary xamples pragmatic veryday life as a litmus test and Nietzschean aphoristic style attitude problem lements Hell I m almost loathe to call it philosophy at all It s like a gorgeous dense glittering puzzle box I guarantee that when I read it again somewhere down the line I ll get something The Accidental Beauty Queen entirely different out of it Wittgenstein seems less concerned with presenting a systematic argument than in prodding the reader s mind I couldn t possibly do Philosophical Investigations justice in a review Even though I ve read it several times I don t understand than a fraction of it The unworthy thought does sometimes cross my mind that its author didn t understand itither but you understand I m just jealous because I m not a Great Philosopher I would so like to be oneAssuming you aren t an aspiring Great Philosopher my advice is not to take this book too seriously it is very frustrating Skim it uickly then check out Philosophical Tribulations by Flash Fiasco and the Uncyclopedia article on Wittgenstein which may help you appreciate the funny side of this unfinished masterpieceI had to try it myself See my review of Biggles of the Camel SuadronI particularly recommend the following passage from the nd of Dr Fiasco s article38 The wind cries Mary but it can t call Bob Why39 Come down off the peaks of obscure rant ism with your rucksack of little grammatical fictions and just whack balls around on the crouet pitch of mundanity Sometimes a simile makes me puke40 If I say raise your arm you know perfectly well what to do and you raise your arm Now suppose I say Want to raise your arm Only don t really raise it just want to Are you uite sure you know what to do in this case Suppose I say Want to raise your arm tomorrow Now suppose I said that last week and say it again next week is this the same want as before or a different one Of course all those ueer wants go on in me and now I want to say Oh to hell with what you always want to say Get on with it41 My philosophy can only be understood as bad poetry42 Philosophy is the disease for which it is supposed to be the cure but isn tWe have met the nemy and they are us The Jewishness of this remark This is the first work by Wittgenstein I ve ver read I ve been terrified of him for years truth be told I ve read a biography by WW Bartley III wouldn t you love to be the third I would stick the three I s on the nd of my name too if I was but unfortunately I m only Trevor the Second The main memory I have of that book is of Wittgenstein waiting to be captured in WWI and him humming the second movement of Beethoven s Seventh That has always been one of my all time always been one of my all time pieces of music and if I was Crown of Stars (Crown of Stars, ever in a machine gun nest about to be captured or potentially killed by thenemy I could think of no better piece of music to be humming The fear has come from the fact Wittgenstein is known as being off the scale brilliant And so I just assumed he would also be too hard to read with him picking out distinctions I wouldn t be able to see ven after he had held them to the light and
TURNED THEM ABOUTTHIS BOOK IS IN them aboutThis book is in uite beautifully written The ideas are complex at times but he does all he can to make them clearThat said I also know I ve only skimmed the surface of this oneThis is a book about meaning it is a book about how language means and therefore the xtent to which language allows communication between people I m going to jump to my understanding of Wittgenstein s answer although answer isn t the right word and that is that language is always socially situated and so you need to understand the situation to make sense of the languageA philosophical project prior to this was the idea of trying to create a language that could be unambiguous and purely logical one that could start from a series of axioms and then go on to recreate the world with ach of its statements being verifiably true This is the sort of idea mentioned in 1984 that for as long as I can know 224 then and so on But then think of the word March You can say The best time to come to Melbourne is March or you can say The second movement of the Seventh is a slow march Clearly the fact march is a homophone is hardly surprising to anyone but Wittgenstein asks if ven that is really true Can you say the month in the same way as you say the verb If you are meaning the month can you say it as the verb The point being that you might not be able to hear any difference between the two uses of the word at all and yet still feel in your bones that it isn t possible to say This Forsaken Earth exactly the same sound while meaning the other This almost links to something he says comparing language to music an idea I think about a lot He says Understanding a sentence is much akin to understanding a theme in music than one might think I think one could spend a lifetime considering that idea and the practicalxpression of that thought is called poetry but it is also true of all language poetry just rubs your nose in itHe makes a similar point The Summer Palace: A Captive Prince Short Story (Captive Prince Short Stories Book 2) elsewhere when he says one might tell someone if you want to pronounce the salutation Hailxpressively you had better not think of hailstones as you say it All of which makes me think of the difference between ffect and affect which I think brings us close to the idea of the socially situated nature of language I think that for me anyway these two words are homophones in English unless I m using affect in the sense of affecting a pose although the dictionary seems to imply that affect is pronounced in the same way regardless of the meaning Still as the dictionary also says affect and ffect are freuently confused Although also clearly they are never confused when we hear them only when we write them No one says did you hear that he said Campfire effect but he obviously meant affect so why not Or rather and to the point why do we distinguish in spelling what we don t seem to distinguish in spoken language A large part of me believes that this distinction in spelling is about stressing social superiority that is it is one of thendless rules designed to make clear that one has learnt the rules that one can display their learning and then presumably use this display to imply their higher intelligence These are things that make no difference to meaning but only to taste and as displays of social position When people get obsessed with the spellings of there their and they re this is purely about showing off one s academic capital and little My Little Blue Dress else The fact these three words are homophones proves no onever confuses their meaning when they are spoken No one Hurrah For The Blackshirts!: Fascists and Fascism in Britain Between the Wars ever says oh you said you want their lunch I thought you meant they re lunch The smugness you might feel when you see these mistakes in written form has nothing to do with meaning but ratherverything to do with social taste and distinctionI think this is the idea Wittgenstein is alluding to when he says language is really language games not in the least that they are trivial uite the opposite the only games we can play in this whole meaning business are language games language derives the most important part of its meaning from the game we are playing at the time from how it is socially situated When I studied philosophy there would always come a time when someone in the class would say and in all seriousness you know what I see as red might not be anything at all like what you see as red we just don t know I wouldn t be surprised to find out that my face has a special twitch that it performs when I hear someone say this Wittgenstein spends a lot of time talking about pain in this book. Rporates many hundreds of changes to Anscombe’s original translation Footnoted remarks in the Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life earlierditions have now been relocated in the textWhat was previously referred to as ‘Part 2’ is now republished as Philosophy of Psychology – A Fragment and all the remarks in it are nu. First off this book is only 197 pages long The reason Goodreads says it s 464 pages is because this Crazy Love edition is dual language One side is in German the original text and the other side is in EnglishCompared to other philosophical readings I ve read in the past I found this one a littleasier to follow I wouldn t call this an asy read though It s uick but after you read the book you re still think about Wittgenstein s philosophy I think I had an asier time with this compared to than say Descartes because it s modernI liked this book mainly because it was about words and langue How does a human process different words compared to other words Why some words we can picture and others we can t see in our minds The second half of this book is about illusions taking the famous rabbit duck picture I think I like that part a little betterMy only real negative part too this book is the translation This is basically the third dual translated book I ve read this year I think this one was better translated but at times it still felt off to me There were awkward parts reading this when Wittgenstein would be talking about a certain word but I reading him in English not German so I wonder if I m reading what he meant or the translatorOtherwise Wittgenstein is a good philosopher He makes things semi asier to understand This isn t some life changing self help book or anything but it will make you aware of how humans think speak write and see I d say this is a good introduction book to read for 20th century philosophy Exasperating but worth itThe syntax of the Investigations has a jaggedly Asperger s feel to it Too often Wittgenstein sounds like a malfunctioning android jabbering its core protocols to itself pacing in frantic circles waving its arms in a vexed Philosophy is the sickness and I m the cure manner The loathsome blend of pedantry and vagueness throughout Part 1 hectoring in tone nebulous in definition can be maddening As a communicator Wittgenstein often ranks with Kant or Heidegger pitiless kraut magi of galling opacity Your cognitive muscles will feel the burn Part 2 is rather less punishing with nticing stimulants on nearly very page while large swaths of Part 1 are a morale stunting crawl through banks of fog What s the dealKeep in mind that PI is a posthumous medley of notes and fragments that never benefitted from a final rigorous copyedit I ve also been told that the recent 2009 translation by Peter Hacker and Joachim Schulte is less stodgy and peeving than the classic Anscombe version An ditor might be tempted to abridge Part 1 to a Best Of showcase for non academics but the moments of profundity strewn throughout that portion 75% of the book probably reuire the groundwork of the wearying fragments to shore up Wittgenstein s visionSo what s the payoff Well a panoptic voyage into speech and semantics that s both rousing Black Heart, Red Ruby emancipatory and at times painfully obvious The latter as we ve washed ashore in a postphilosophical age that takes so much of Wittgenstein for granted but also because hisxpository style can read like an amnesiac head trauma patient attempting to reconstruct language use from scratch poking and prodding at kindergarten level grammar to xplore how situational semantics weaves and bends through our intricately mbodied moment to moment actualities all tempered by an uneasy nostalgia for positivist puzzles boxed in the attic radiant antiues that gave so much faux luster to our mental livesWittgenstein wants us to detox to scrape out the arterial plaue of false problems Fundamental confusions about language use he fears have staggered us into an New Plant Parent: Learn the Ways of Plant Parenthood ersatz world ofpistemic mazes and circular obstacle courses a bad Philip K Dick novel of cloying simulacra PI aims to unjack us from this Matrix wrench us back down into our bodies a homecoming to and abashed rediscovery of the Dreaming Me: An African-American Woman's Buddhist Journey everyday Though Darwin is never mentioned in PI Wittgenstein s corrosive presence in the philosophical canon is comparable tovolutionary models preempting theological sleight of hand Post theist armchair philosophy in Wittgenstein s God's Pocket eyes is still beholden to the systemrecting wankfest of priestly theorizing To reiterate a familiar story we ve displaced ancient Platonic illusions into the matrices of rationalist projects which refuse to accept that our universe is non linguistic and so can never be mirrored or simulated by our anthropic ЯED earthbound syntax Our lives are short and our knowledge is crimped and narrow It s best we have the humility to concede our limits pending some dubious self immolating transhumanist upgrade As with Kant wisdom often means knowing what we can t do 426 A picture is conjured up which seems to fix the sense unambiguously The actual use compared with that suggested by the picture seems like something muddied Here again we get the same thing as in set theory the form ofxpression we use seems to have been designed for a god who knows what we cannot know he sees the whole of ach of those infinite series and he sees into human consciousness For us of course these forms of xpression are like pontificals which we may put on but cannot do much with since we lack the ffective
Power That Would Give that would give vestments meaning and purpose In the actual use of xpressions we make detours we go by side roads We see the straight highway before us but of course we cannot use it because it is permanently closed pg 108 Blackwell 2001To prime yourself download the two part Partially Examined Life podcast Wittgenstein on Language Episode 55 15307 56 15301 roundtable discussion throughout is very good My only niggle pertains to one of the participants bungling the renowned Piero Sraffa anecdote mistakenly attributing it to GE
Moore The That The fact remaining scholars claim never to have heard of it is Moreno eually strange It s at least as famous as the Karl Popper fireplace pokerpisode Wittgenstein Monsieur Pain even thanks Sraffa in his Preface Oh wellPHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS translated by GEM AnscombeA for substantive vision and historical importance C forxpository claritySpecial bonus trackWas Wittgenstein Right by Paul Horwich NYU The Stone New York Times Opinionator blog 3313 This book was assembled posthumously Wittgenstein having published very little in his lifetime Although usually coupled with the Tractatus it is actually representative of his thought and methodThe virtue of Wittgenstein may be that with him there is no hint of metaphysical conceit or self deception but rather a consistent treatment of reality as in fact various language games language being understood broadly to include A Spark of Light: the fearless new novel from the Number One bestselling author everything from the semiotic to the symbolic the denotative to the connotative and games being understood to be intersubjective practices Interestingly however behind this reserve runs a strong mystical sense comparable to Kant s attractionaversion to the Ideas of Reason While he was on the one hand a thoroughgoing critic of sloppy thinking andxpression he was also on the other prone to the religio aesthetic flights of the late Heidegger The study of his biography and jottings presents the image of a man at once piercingly clear and personally What If enigmatic at once a dispeller of illusions and a victim of multiple neuroses While apparently coming across to his redoubtable colleagues including Bertrand Russell as a genius his actual writings are all ratherasy going suggesting to me at least that we re all or none of us geniuses This book is too complex to summarize but here is a nutshell If you want to know the meaning of a word consider how the word is used Words are used in a variety of language games interactions among people which display family resemblances That is there is no single model which shows the The Exhaustion Breakthrough essence of how words are used but rather there are many overlapping and differing language gamesach of which is a different modelEnough summarizing Now to what I am interested in what I called once before Wittgenstein s behaviorism which I didn t like After reading the Philosophical Investigations I have come to the conclusion that Wittgenstein is not nearly as behavioristic as I had thought In fact he is the most introspective behaviorist that I could imagine but he still The Exhaustion Breakthrough: Unmask the Hidden Reasons You're Tired and Beat Fatigue for Good ends up being of a behaviorist than I likeWhat do I mean by behaviorism Wittgenstein is a skeptic with regard to meaning in the sense that he does not think that meaning is something we can look inside of ourselves introspect to discover As I summarized above Wittgenstein believes that meaning is revealed by the use of a word in social interactions in other words through language games the behavior of the people using the wordConsider words for what we usually think of as mental phenomena thinking believing remembering knowing and the like How can you tell if someone knows that Paris is in France If you ask him he gives you the right answer If he looks inside of his mind must there be the knowledge that Paris is in France Not necessarily He might notven be thinking of that and Supplemental Book even if he were subvocalizing Paris is in France is there a mental uality that distinguishes that as knowing Thus Wittgenstein gives a formidable argument that knowing consists not in any mental phenomenon but in the behavior of giving the right answer In making this argument Wittgenstein has not avoided introspection as a techniue On the contrary he has used itxtensively Even when he asks us to imagine a certain language game we are imagining a behavior but we are using introspection to do it Wittgenstein is a master of asking the rhetorical uestion which reveals how we use a particular word in social interactions but Hark! The Herald Angels Scream each rhetorical uestion reuires a looking into ourselves and ourxperiencesWittgenstein is not ultimately hostile to our looking into ourselves in fact I think he would regard it as a fruitful part of life But his basic point is that only when our introspected observations can be validated by being part of our interactions with other people our language games only then can the words have consistent and usable meaningsMy uibble with this is that introspection sometimes yields results than Wittgenstein is prepared to recognize As just one Colloquial Polish: The Complete Course for Beginners example Wittgenstein asks how do we judge time He says that we might sit for a while and say Incorporating significantditorial changes from arlier ditions the fourth Bidadari yang Mengembara edition of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is the definitiven face German English version of the most important work of 20th century philosophy The xtensively revised English translation inco.