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 ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.