Skip to main content

What is the notion of philosophy according to Wittgenstein's works, especially in the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations? What are the...

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein argued that all of the problems of philosophy are problems of language. Therefore, all philosophical problems can be solved by addressing the way philosophical problems are stated, reasoned, and thought of. This includes applications of logic, symbolic logic, linguistics, semantics, and how we think. In this latter case, Wittgenstein likened the thinking of language and philosophy as making a logical picture of facts. For Wittgenstein, at this stage of his thinking, language has a logical structure. Anything we can say that has truth and/or meaning, can only be said in language. So, whatever we can not say in language is beyond our understanding and is therefore beyond the limits of philosophy. Anything that is beyond our understanding is meaningless to us. The Tractatus focuses on language but it is also Wittgenstein's way of showing the limits of thought. Language is a fixed, logical structure. 


In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein is still keenly aware of language's role in understanding philosophy, but this work is a departure from the Tractatus in other significant ways. In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein no longer views language as a structure all by itself, separate from humans. At this point, he is more interested in how humans/speakers and language interact. In this shift, Wittgenstein has moved from a mathematical analysis of language in philosophy to something still rigorously logical but more psychological and sociological. Wittgenstein admitted that his thinking in the Tractatus was too simple and general. Thinking only of language as this fixed, self-contained structure of logic ignores the myriad ways humans use and manipulate language. As a result, he changes his thinking and describes language as something more elastic and changeable. This is why he discusses the idea of "language games." Just as there are different rules for different games (sports, board games, etc.), language has different rules for certain contexts, propositions, and so on. So, to address meaning, truth, and philosophy, we have to consider how diverse language is used. In this more flexible philosophy of language, Wittgenstein acknowledges how one proposition could mean two (or more) different things depending upon context and human application. Consider the proposition "King Arthur did not exist." As a mythological character, this is false. The character existed and does exist in a number of literary works. As a historical figure, he may have existed, but probably not as portrayed in those literary works. So, you can see how one proposition can have many different meanings. This is something that Wittgenstein did not consider or address in the Tractatus

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...