Fooloso4

My question to you was: Ethics is not a theory of ethics, just as music is not a theory of music. The failure to make that distinction results in a fa...

Descartes took his motto from Ovid: He who lived well hid himself well. What hides behind the pious facade of a proof of God’s existence based on his ...

The topic is the Tractatus but you jump from W. to Kant because both discuss the will and then to a misrepresentation of Russell in order to show that...

6.422 So our question about the consequences of an action must be unimportant.—At least those consequences should not be events. For there must be som...

It is the connection of things that is important. Simple objects contain their possibilities for occurring in states of affairs, but we cannot tell fr...

Have you read my posts on this? Any answer I give will only be repeating what I have already quoted him saying

This is not about a science of ethics, it is about why someone would think one sort of thing good and another evil. It does not follow that the one is...

Of course it needs the will to be carried through. It needs the will even to attempt to determine what is ethical. Without the will to do good there w...

Since we desire pleasure and avoid pain, and move toward the one and avoid the other, it is a matter of will, of what one wishes to pursue or shun. No...

Why would we do this if we did not will to do or choose what is good or best or just or most fair or most beneficial or least harmful? The will is not...

Utilitarianism says that one's choice of action and policy should be guided by what promotes the greater good. Although not generally expressed in the...

Is there any ethics that is not based on will - on volition or choice?

Kant attempts to develop a moral science. It puts the will on the wrong side of the boundary that Wittgenstein establishes both in terms of where the ...

No, they are fundamentally different. There is for Wittgenstein no categorical imperative.

With regard to actions and consequences: It is not the consequences of our action, which is something over which we have no control, but “good will”. ...

I have gone through the whole of the Tractatus section by section, section by section, beginning on page 12. I skipped over the parts that address for...

You really do have a large blind spot.

This has already been addressed. It is not a matter of what he says or thinks, but of what he does, how he lives.

I don’t know who you are referring to but certainly not anyone who understands Wittgenstein. He is not “starting to attack also the ‘thinking’ mode of...

Plato, like Socrates, was deeply ironical. In addition, the Republic can be read as the kind of defense of philosophy that Socrates did not give at hi...

I have not idea what the chimaera you are referring to that you say he is referring to is. If you would like to discuss it cite in in context and tell...

And?

There are various forms of knowledge including things that can only be known via experience. And that is why Wittgenstein remains silent about such ex...

It is quite clear that there is ethical experience. One knows what it is, according to W., to be a happy man. One knows what it is to be in agreement ...

In other words, as I have been saying, there is not discursive knowledge regarding the ethical.

In answer to the first part of the question, once again: In the Tractatus W. is almost silent about God, which of course would be expected, but there ...

It is related to the term discourse, thus to language and the expression of thoughts. That depends on the game. When the game has to do with the facts...

I do not extract that from the quote. He explicitly states that this is what philosophy does. I quote it and reference it in a post on the section of ...

An interesting article. I wonder how his thought would have developed if he had lived. The following caught my eye as it related to the discussion of ...

I cannot comment on the rhino. I do not know what was said. I do not know, as the link assumes, that it had something to do with induction. Here’s the...

So, you ask questions but do not answer them? Logic determines what is possible. It tells us nothing of what is actual.

How does that answer the question about induction? I included several of those statements in my discussion of 6.

I think the larger issue has to do with his claim that the laws of nature and the law of causality are not necessary laws. It follows that there can b...

Once again: the term metaphysics is used both in the sense of a science and a subject area that may or may not be addressed via science, that is, as s...

That is precisely the point. By treating them as eternal, unchangeable Forms they are no longer a matter of opinion but of something known by the phil...

I might put it this way: if logic is the transcendent condition for language then what is the transcendental condition for silence? The answer is ethi...

That is the story, but we should not read Plato as we would a discourse on metaphysics. There must be an art of reading that corresponds to his art of...

Transcendental, as the term is used here, means both what transcends or is not contained within and, in the Kantian sense, the condition for the possi...

There are some things that can be said relating to the will, which I will address, but it is more about what is seen, what is experienced. The saying/...

Because W. does not treat God and soul a priori. I will have more to say on this in #6 of the Tractatus. He does. I quoted them above. The most import...

Your impression is wrong, very wrong. I do not generally discuss my education or credentials in the forums because I prefer that the arguments be eval...

I am attempting to follow the Tractatus step by. What W. presents is already a distillation, which I have further reduced to a set of quotes followed ...

I addressed this a couple of days ago in my post on section 5 of the Tractatus in the topic on the Tractatus. There has been no response. I would like...

There are several issues - same/identity and difference (a problem that is as old as philosophy itself), seeing the same thing differently, and the co...

We might see humans and pigs as being very different but we use the valves from pig hearts to replace faulty human valves. That would not be the case ...

I am simply pointing to the connection between perception and conception, something he will be discussing latter on. I have made no claim that he is c...

I do not want to compound the problem of trying to understand what W. is saying by raising questions about what Moore is saying. I am simply pointing ...

You are confusing an epistemological distinction - a priori and a posteriori with an ontological distinction - in terms of the Tractatus, what is and ...

And yet he points these things out. See, for example, Moore’s position on perception. Issues such as “seeing as” and framing are things that “highly e...

There is no one thing that all things that have something in common have. Making distinctions is not the one thing that seeing what things have in com...