Timeline for Had Wittgenstein moved away from Schopenhauer by the time of the Tractatus?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 30, 2016 at 17:21 | comment | added | Conifold | @Mozibur I think that he probably did, he was into history of philosophy. But I doubt he meant it Protagoras's way, he was a self proclaimed neo-Pythagorean after all. Here is the quote from Four Incapacities (1868):"For, as the fact that every thought is a sign, taken in conjunction with the fact that life is a train of thought, proves that man is a sign; so, that every thought is an external sign, proves that man is an external sign... Thus my language is the sum total of myself; for the man is the thought." | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 7:58 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @conifold: I wonder if Pierce read Protagoras who said 'man is the measure of all things'; it might be impossible to find out...but one can hope; thank-you for your elucidations. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 | comment | added | Conifold | Young Wittgenstein was maximalistic, he wanted to replace natural language with concept script that makes most of philosophy inexpressible, he was happy to cut down most of classical mathematics (according to Russell and Friedman), and met "true contradictions" with a shrug. If anything, "the limits of language... mean the limits of my world" has more to do with Peirce than with Schopenhauer, who first suggested that "man is a sign", and whose themes appear also in PI. It became a commonality with pragmatists that self and inner speech are internalized from language and social relations. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 1:00 | comment | added | Conifold | @Mozibur The ladder is Tractatus 6.54:"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them – as steps – to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)" That's why I do not think that Ram's distinction works. "Strictly misleading" is moot if it is all nonsensical and the point is to leave it behind. | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 10:04 | comment | added | Ram Tobolski | @Conifold The "ladder" proceeds with philosophically familiar terms like: fact, thought, picturing. I don't see in the ladder idea anything that justifies using a term not merely unconventionally, but in a strictly misleading way. | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 8:18 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @conifold: Does this mean that we only understand them when we use them conventionally? Personally, I find the concept of solipsism meaningful, even though I don't agree with it; what does W mean by throwing away which ladder? | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 23:39 | comment | added | Conifold | Because the reader "must throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it"? Isn't the whole point of the Tractatus to unteach us to misuse meaningless words like "solipsism", which we only fancy to understand, in particular by using them unconventionally? | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 20:07 | comment | added | Ram Tobolski | @Conifold Hintikka's claim is that Wittgenstein used the word "solipsism" in a very unusual way. Even if Hintikka is correct, it still leaves unanswered the question, why would Wittgenstein choose to use words which appear so inappropriate? | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 2:44 | comment | added | Conifold | Here is Hintikka on Wittgenstein's (mistranslated) "solipsism" jstor.org/stable/2251341?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents I don't really see affinity to Schopenhauer. The "ineffability" interpretation of the Tractatus is also textually challenged philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/… | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 21:19 | comment | added | Ram Tobolski | @MoziburUllah Thanks for another great question ;) | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 17:35 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | Great, Anscombe did say that there were traces of Schopenhauer in the Tractatus; I didn't expect to see his first self-dramatising sentence there though! | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 17:30 | vote | accept | Mozibur Ullah | ||
| Aug 23, 2016 at 17:18 | history | answered | Ram Tobolski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |