Timeline for Which if any philosophers might be considered affiliated with Wittgenstein's school of thought or have expressed similar views?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2012 at 2:00 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | I can't see much difference between early Wittgenstein and Russell, except for style issues. The logical positivists were also influenced by the idea of a formal language. Later Wittgenstein I haven't read. | |
| Mar 26, 2012 at 16:44 | answer | added | Jon | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 10, 2012 at 20:06 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | I have tried to trim down and focus the question a bit around the reframed concern. Please feel free to develop this further. | |
| Feb 10, 2012 at 20:05 | history | edited | Joseph Weissman♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Trimmed down/focused somewhat
|
| Feb 10, 2012 at 9:39 | comment | added | Speldosa | The edit is fine. I still hold that I don't want to read Wittgenstein since I'm suspicious of philosophers who write in a style that is too much open for interpretation (compare the amount of interpretation between for example Wittgensteins' texts and Frege or Russel) and where the secondary litterature focuses on what that philosopher thought rather than on what is correct. Anyhow, the edit will still generate the answers that I'm after and that's the important part for me. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 23:06 | history | edited | Joseph Weissman♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Feb 9, 2012 at 22:59 | history | reopened |
Chuck Jon Ericson Joseph Weissman♦ |
||
| Feb 9, 2012 at 22:58 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | That said, I am voting to reopen at this time because your edit is a vast improvement, and at least partially displaces the problem I am outlining above. I would like to confirm with Speldosa that we haven't altered her intent here too fundamentally. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 22:56 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | Thanks, @Chuck. I want to note here that I still find this somewhat problematic; despite the very good reformulation you have performed the way the question is structured still asks for an "alternative" (instead of asking for help addressing particular challenges, or of asking for quality secondary literature that could help, or asking for help in general.) | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 22:54 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | @Chuck: There's a certain Magritte quality to "I am not going to rant". But with your edit, I voted to reopen. I still think the question is marginal and I'd really like the OP to clarify what they they intended to ask. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 22:34 | comment | added | Chuck | @Joseph I took the liberty of editing the question in order to get it re-opened. If you think this is not in line with the spirit of the original question I will retract my edits. | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 22:33 | history | edited | Chuck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Took the libery to edit according to the complaints voiced in the meta discussion and the comments. If Speldosa is unhappy with the edit let me know
|
| Feb 9, 2012 at 22:29 | comment | added | Chuck | @Joseph Probably a mistaken click. By the way I just noticed that what we've been calling a 'rant' is Speldosa saying 'I am not going to rant' | |
| Feb 9, 2012 at 15:52 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | @Chuck I think your message may have been cut short? | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 22:22 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | @Chuck that is an interesting point. Now regardless of the thinker I would still have an issue with the idea that there is an "alternative" to a philosopher, that could give you the same material "more simply" -- besides secondary literature on the thinker in question... I would definitely reconsider my close-vote here given a more reasonably-scoped, less open-ended formulation. Now, asking after other thinkers holding "similar" views or "affiliated" with a given turn or school -- this would be completlely satisfactory to me. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 22:00 | comment | added | Chuck | @Joseph If I were to ask: 'I find Deleuze impenetrable; is there anyone affiliated to his school of thought that has expressed similar views, or is widely considered to have held similar views, that I could read in order to get a handle on Deleuze's ideas?' Surely that's an acceptable question - it asks for historical context and scholarly help, two categories philstack ought to accommodate. I think you guys are getting put off by the rant in the beginning, but it really has nothing to do with the actual question. I maintain my position. | |
| Feb 8, 2012 at 21:57 | history | edited | Chuck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected grammar
|
| Feb 7, 2012 at 23:12 | comment | added | Jon Ericson |
I think the question is way too broad to be useful (even after the edit). If you were to focus on a specific topic from Tractatus and/or PI and ask something like, "I want to read more about X, which I know Wittgenstein covers. But I find his writing style too hard going. Does any other philosopher cover X in a more readable way?" As it is, the "question" sounds more like a rant about Wittgenstein's writing-style than a real query about any particular philosophical topic.
|
|
| Feb 7, 2012 at 22:46 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | @Chuck I am pretty sensitive to this, and certainly am not trying to discourage well-meaning participation. I have offered suggestions as to reformulations, but this is just really problematic to me as written. Note there is a related meta discussion about the question which you may wish to contribute to | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 22:33 | comment | added | Chuck | @Joseph Voted to reopen - I agree with Speldosa. The closing policy - as I have indicated elsewhere - is putting people off. | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 22:00 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 73 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2012 at 20:57 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | Please note that closure is not intended as punishment and does not have to be permanent. Your question may be straightforward but is not particularly constructive. The issue is what I raised above -- there is no meaningful "alternative" to actually reading a specific writer or work. Again my suggestion (as made by several answers below, I note) is to reframe this to ask for help with whatever particular challenges you might be encountering with the work. | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 19:51 | comment | added | Speldosa | Seriously, could the moderators at SE Philosophy stop with their extremely aggressive and highly subjective closing of threads? If this isn't within the boundaries of what is allowed, I don't know what is (bear in mind that the question has received two upvotes and three answers; obviously, the community doesn't deem it as either nonsensical or open-ended. I am interested in exactly the questions that Wittgenstein ralks about but I can't stand his unclear style. I would like to know who I should read instead who is close to him. I think this is extremely straight-forward. | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 16:15 | history | closed | Joseph Weissman♦ | not constructive | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 16:00 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | I am concerned that this really isn't entirely appropriate as currently formulated. Asking for "alternatives" to a philosopher is a bit too open-ended, and perhaps even somewhat nonsensical: there is no substitute for reading a book or author. | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 9:18 | comment | added | Speldosa | Well, the thing is I'm not looking for secondary litterature about what Wittgenstein might have thought. I've already found good books about this. The thing is, I don't want to read philosophers whose philosophy is up for interpretation. If people need to have long discussions about what a person thought about a certain matter, then that philosopher probably didn't know him-/herself. Why read a whole book regarding if Wittgenstein held position x or y when he just could have written the answer himself? | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 6:53 | answer | added | robin girard | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 23:42 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | Is there any chance I might be able to persuade you to reframe the question line here? My suggestion might be: "what are some strategies and/or secondary literature to make wittgenstein approachable?" (The basic suggestion is to avoid an open-ended question.) | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 21:32 | comment | added | Speldosa | I don't mean for this to expand into a discussion about why I find Wittgenstein's writing murky by design, but compare for example the introduction of the Tractatus by Russel and the main text of the Tractatus. Just compare the amount of different interpretations of what Wittgenstein says in his philosophy and the number of interpretations what Russel says in his philosophy (are there even debates about what Russel actually thought?). | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 17:50 | comment | added | Mitch | I share your difficulty in understanding Wittgenstein's writings, and if assume correctly, your unfavorable opinion of his style. There are a number of very short intro's to W, that are much more explicit. Kripke comments on W in a favorable style, but that's another level deeper. | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 15:26 | answer | added | Chuck | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 14:41 | answer | added | Michael Dorfman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 13:41 | comment | added | Joseph Weissman♦ | Can you be a bit more specific about the challenges you encountered trying to read Wittgenstein? | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 13:15 | history | asked | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |