4 further spelling mistakes corrected
source | link

So, I begin this brief critique on the assumption his metaphysics bears some correlation to a naive interpretation of the Descartian scepticismCartesian skepticism that the Devil is playing tricks on the existence of a permanent personal identity. In particular, I would lie to draw on Russell's most basic critic of the permanence of the "I" as a syntactic gestalt. Of course, Russel's own attempt at forming complete systems constistentconsistent within themselves was unexpectedly undermined by Godel'sGödel's famous proof a few decades hence.

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrativemeta-narrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the ability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day living of a virtuous life (an[an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyond, and still holds credence)credence]).

Does Wittgenstein's later philosophy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

So, I begin this brief critique on the assumption his metaphysics bears some correlation to a naive interpretation of the Descartian scepticism that the Devil is playing tricks on the existence of a permanent personal identity. In particular, I would lie to draw on Russell's most basic critic of the permanence of the "I" as a syntactic gestalt. Of course, Russel's own attempt at forming complete systems constistent within themselves was unexpectedly undermined by Godel's famous proof a few decades hence.

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the ability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day living of a virtuous life (an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyond, and still holds credence)).

Does Wittgenstein's later philosophy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

So, I begin this brief critique on the assumption his metaphysics bears some correlation to a naive interpretation of the Cartesian skepticism that the Devil is playing tricks on the existence of a permanent personal identity. In particular, I would lie to draw on Russell's most basic critic of the permanence of the "I" as a syntactic gestalt. Of course, Russel's own attempt at forming complete systems consistent within themselves was unexpectedly undermined by Gödel's famous proof a few decades hence.

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct meta-narrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the ability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day living of a virtuous life [an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyond, and still holds credence]).

Does Wittgenstein's later philosophy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

3 deleted 6 characters in body
source | link

The subject of this question is the comparison betweenthbetween the earlier and later WittgenstienWittgenstein.

So, I begin this brief crtiquecritique on the assumption his metaphisicsmetaphysics bears some correlation to a naive interpretation of the Descartian scepticism that the Devil is playing tricks on the existence of a prmentaltpermanent personal identity. In particular, I would lie to draw on Russell's most basic critic of the permenancepermanence of the "I" as a synticticsyntactic gestalt. Of course, Russel's own attempt at forming complete systems constistent within themselves was unexpectedly undermined by Godel's famous prooveproof a few decades hence.

But essensiallyessentially, Russell's argument that the "I" is impermenantimpermanent is a concept that has had reverberations that extend not only throughout the the ivory tower of academia, but have had very real implications of the concept of permenacepermanence and change in the concept of identity as a construct that range from the Existential to Eastern philosophical doctrines such as Taoism (and those influenced by them: SchopenhouerSchopenhauer, etc.)

What lead to Wittgenstein's departure from his more classical textual critique to his more radical and celebrated consideration (that involved nopno doubt no small admission of humility on his part) that his obsevationsobservations of the section of society that his observations were based on brought his conclusions based almost entirely on theory as oposedopposed to having any empiricaempirical basis were evectivelyeffectively brought to its knessknees. In its place grew a more natural and organic philosophy based on empirical study whereby he imbued in the language of "the masses" an almost transendentaltranscendental quality in which resided an intrinsic quality of the language as on organic entity and the employers of such a natural circumventing of the academic rigmarolrigmarole of subjecting themselves to years of study of an appreciation of a linguistic life that they were living already.

So is this "runing"running and dancing" (clearly a superficial metaphor for the more difficultly defined concept of "living") the living that the non-philosopher does instinctively, and hence the crux of Jarman's epitaph in a critique on Russell's, (speaking of mathematics, but easily applied to the study of philosophy: particularly that of the field of self-contained logical systems),

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the ability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day living of a virtuous life (an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyond, and still holds credancecredence)).

Does Wittgenstein's later philosopyphilosophy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

The subject of this question is the comparison betweenth the earlier and later Wittgenstien.

So, I begin this brief crtique on the assumption his metaphisics bears some correlation to a naive interpretation of the Descartian scepticism that the Devil is playing tricks on the existence of a prmentalt personal identity. In particular, I would lie to draw on Russell's most basic critic of the permenance of the "I" as a syntictic gestalt. Of course, Russel's own attempt at forming complete systems constistent within themselves was unexpectedly undermined by Godel's famous proove a few decades hence.

But essensially, Russell's argument that the "I" is impermenant is a concept that has had reverberations that extend not only throughout the the ivory tower of academia, but have had very real implications of the concept of permenace and change in the concept of identity as a construct that range from the Existential to Eastern philosophical doctrines such as Taoism (and those influenced by them: Schopenhouer, etc.)

What lead to Wittgenstein's departure from his more classical textual critique to his more radical and celebrated consideration (that involved nop doubt no small admission of humility on his part) that his obsevations of the section of society that his observations were based on brought his conclusions based almost entirely on theory as oposed to having any empirica basis were evectively brought to its kness. In its place grew a more natural and organic philosophy based on empirical study whereby he imbued in the language of "the masses" an almost transendental quality in which resided an intrinsic quality of the language as on organic entity and the employers of such a natural circumventing of the academic rigmarol of subjecting themselves to years of study of an appreciation of a linguistic life that they were living already.

So is this "runing and dancing" (clearly a superficial metaphor for the more difficultly defined concept of "living") the living that the non-philosopher does instinctively, and hence the crux of Jarman's epitaph in a critique on Russell's, (speaking of mathematics, but easily applied to the study of philosophy: particularly that of the field of self-contained logical systems),

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the ability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day living of a virtuous life (an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyond, and still holds credance)).

Does Wittgenstein's later philosopy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

The subject of this question is the comparison between the earlier and later Wittgenstein.

So, I begin this brief critique on the assumption his metaphysics bears some correlation to a naive interpretation of the Descartian scepticism that the Devil is playing tricks on the existence of a permanent personal identity. In particular, I would lie to draw on Russell's most basic critic of the permanence of the "I" as a syntactic gestalt. Of course, Russel's own attempt at forming complete systems constistent within themselves was unexpectedly undermined by Godel's famous proof a few decades hence.

But essentially, Russell's argument that the "I" is impermanent is a concept that has had reverberations that extend not only throughout the ivory tower of academia, but have had very real implications of the concept of permanence and change in the concept of identity as a construct that range from the Existential to Eastern philosophical doctrines such as Taoism (and those influenced by them: Schopenhauer, etc.)

What lead to Wittgenstein's departure from his more classical textual critique to his more radical and celebrated consideration (that involved no doubt no small admission of humility on his part) that his observations of the section of society that his observations were based on brought his conclusions based almost entirely on theory as opposed to having any empirical basis were effectively brought to its knees. In its place grew a more natural and organic philosophy based on empirical study whereby he imbued in the language of "the masses" an almost transcendental quality in which resided an intrinsic quality of the language as on organic entity and the employers of such a natural circumventing of the academic rigmarole of subjecting themselves to years of study of an appreciation of a linguistic life that they were living already.

So is this "running and dancing" (clearly a superficial metaphor for the more difficultly defined concept of "living") the living that the non-philosopher does instinctively, and hence the crux of Jarman's epitaph in a critique on Russell's, (speaking of mathematics, but easily applied to the study of philosophy: particularly that of the field of self-contained logical systems),

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the ability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day living of a virtuous life (an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyond, and still holds credence)).

Does Wittgenstein's later philosophy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

2 improved spelling
source | link

Earlier and later WittgenstienWittgenstein - reasons for change in thought, and resultant conclusions

But essensially, Russell's argument that the "I" is impermenant is a concept that has had reverberations that extend not only throughout the the ivory tower of academia, but have had very real implications of the concept of permenace and change in the concept of identity as a construct that range from the Existential to Eastern philosophical doctrines such as TaouismTaoism (and those influenced by them: Schopenhouer, etc.)

What lead to Wittgenstien'sWittgenstein's departure from his more classical textual critique to his more radical and celebrated consideration (that involved nop doubt no small admission of humility on his part) that his obsevations of the section of society that his observations were based on brought his conclusions based almost entirely on theory as oposed to having any empirica basis were evectively brought to its kness. In its place grew a more natural and organic philosophy based on empirical study whereby he imbued in the language of "the masses" an almost transendental quality in which resided an intrinsic quality of the language as on organic entity and the employers of such a natural circumventing of the academic rigmarol of subjecting themselves to years of study of an appreciation of a linguistic life that they were living already.

So is this "runing and dancing" (clearly a superficial metaphor for the more difficultly defined concept of "living") the living that the non-philosopher does instinctively, and hence the crux of Jarman's epitaph in a critique on Russell's, (speaking of mathematics, but eailyeasily applied to the study of philosophy: particularly that of the field of self-contained logical systems),

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstien'sWittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as NeitzscheNietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the abiltiyability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day liveingliving of a virtuous life (an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyoumdbeyond, and still holds credance)).

Does Wittgenstien'sWittgenstein's later philosopy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life inis not worth living?"

Earlier and later Wittgenstien - reasons for change in thought, and resultant conclusions

But essensially, Russell's argument that the "I" is impermenant is a concept that has had reverberations that extend not only throughout the the ivory tower of academia, but have had very real implications of the concept of permenace and change in the concept of identity as a construct that range from the Existential to Eastern philosophical doctrines such as Taouism (and those influenced by them: Schopenhouer, etc.)

What lead to Wittgenstien's departure from his more classical textual critique to his more radical and celebrated consideration (that involved nop doubt no small admission of humility on his part) that his obsevations of the section of society that his observations were based on brought his conclusions based almost entirely on theory as oposed to having any empirica basis were evectively brought to its kness. In its place grew a more natural and organic philosophy based on empirical study whereby he imbued in the language of "the masses" an almost transendental quality in which resided an intrinsic quality of the language as on organic entity and the employers of such a natural circumventing of the academic rigmarol of subjecting themselves to years of study of an appreciation of a linguistic life that they were living already.

So is this "runing and dancing" (clearly a superficial metaphor for the more difficultly defined concept of "living") the living that the non-philosopher does instinctively, and hence the crux of Jarman's epitaph in a critique on Russell's, (speaking of mathematics, but eaily applied to the study of philosophy: particularly that of the field of self-contained logical systems),

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstien's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Neitzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the abiltiy to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day liveing of a virtuous life (an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyoumd, and still holds credance)).

Does Wittgenstien's later philosopy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life in not worth living?"

Earlier and later Wittgenstein - reasons for change in thought, and resultant conclusions

But essensially, Russell's argument that the "I" is impermenant is a concept that has had reverberations that extend not only throughout the the ivory tower of academia, but have had very real implications of the concept of permenace and change in the concept of identity as a construct that range from the Existential to Eastern philosophical doctrines such as Taoism (and those influenced by them: Schopenhouer, etc.)

What lead to Wittgenstein's departure from his more classical textual critique to his more radical and celebrated consideration (that involved nop doubt no small admission of humility on his part) that his obsevations of the section of society that his observations were based on brought his conclusions based almost entirely on theory as oposed to having any empirica basis were evectively brought to its kness. In its place grew a more natural and organic philosophy based on empirical study whereby he imbued in the language of "the masses" an almost transendental quality in which resided an intrinsic quality of the language as on organic entity and the employers of such a natural circumventing of the academic rigmarol of subjecting themselves to years of study of an appreciation of a linguistic life that they were living already.

So is this "runing and dancing" (clearly a superficial metaphor for the more difficultly defined concept of "living") the living that the non-philosopher does instinctively, and hence the crux of Jarman's epitaph in a critique on Russell's, (speaking of mathematics, but easily applied to the study of philosophy: particularly that of the field of self-contained logical systems),

Is the above the, the essence of Wittgenstein's claim that he proclaimed the end of philosophy, just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of god as a metaphor for the death of morality within the framework of the defunct metanarrative of religion, was merely an admission that philosophy of linguistics was defunct, albeit an effective vehicle for the dry (and useless in terms of practical application, if the study of philosophy was also to exhibit the ability to live by one's philosophy, as though philosophy were an ethos or a system that the practitioner must adhere to if the world of ideas were to somehow have some intrinsic part to play in the day to day living of a virtuous life (an idea that was propounded by the pre-Socratics and beyond, and still holds credance)).

Does Wittgenstein's later philosopy not merely stand as a critique to the Socratic epithet that, "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

1
source | link