Fooloso4

In the middle of a discussion of conceptual commonalities and distinctions W. introduces three paragraphs on seeing. The connection between seeing and...

Wittgenstein affirms the freedom of the will. It is not in the world. It is at the limit. W. is not denying the existence of the soul but a particular...

The metaphysical questions of God, soul, and world that are not rejected by Kant. The existence of God cannot be proven a priori but that did not lead...

By that measure a good teacher is one who panders. Why should a teacher concur with what we already believe unless what we already believe is unquesti...

Kant did not reject metaphysics, he rejected a priori metaphysics. God and the soul were for Kant matters of faith. W. too rejects a priori metaphysic...

The way I was trained and the way I taught was via primary texts. This approach does not appeal to everyone. It is difficult and slow going. It too ha...

If one reads the text based on some theory of how it is to be interpreted then what one will see is not the PI but another text: “The PI According to ...

I think that Wittgenstein's use follows that of Kant. The metaphysical refers to questions of God, soul, and world. They are not objects in the world ...

I have not given up but I don't have anything to add to the current sections and since I am a late comer don't want to push forward.

I do not think that W. thought of it in that way. I will be discussing some of his comments on God.

I was referring to the Tractatus, what I think W. is saying. By do both do you mean give my own opinion? If so, the reason is that it muddies the wate...

It is not clear whether you are asking what I think is meant by the metaphysical as used by Wittgenstein or by others or my thoughts on the metaphysic...

Yes, I did read it. I don’t think he was trying to “dissolve language”, but to set boundaries to what language does - represent reality, and how it do...

There is a great deal here that I am not addressing. My focus is on trying to understand what W. means in the preface and ending. It may be that one c...

The Guardian article cited by Amity is very helpful in addressing your question. Some quotes from Nietzsche compiled by Arthur M. Melzer Nietzsche on ...

There is one that I am active in now. I would like to hear what you have to say. We have covered through 3 without getting bogged down in details but ...

I think there are some areas of agreement but some areas of disagreement. I have tried to address the objections he has made. I would like to go throu...

This is true with regard to objects and facts but the 'I' is not a thing, not an object or thing.

This is something I want to address but would like to work up to it.

This is where the distinction between saying and showing becomes crucial. As I understand it, his main concern is not with what is in the world, its c...

If the limits of logic and the world are the same then by determining a limit to the world we can determine a limit of logic. Here is the most importa...

It is not simply a matter of how propositions connect with the world but of the logical structure of the world from simple objects that make up the su...

Sorry, I missed the clarification you made between them: I still think it is important to emphasize that the rejection of Tractarian logic is as much ...

The difference is that W. had in his own words sublimed the logic of language in the Tractatus (PI §38, PI §89). It is not just the relationship betwe...

The limits of logic, world, and language are the same.

It is not the logic of language but the logic of the language-game, different games different logics, that is to say, different grammars or rules.

This is a new term for me. I had to look it up. The problem with such labels is that once the label is applied or accepted one is implicated in a vari...

Whitmarsh makes the following point in the opening sentence of his article Battling the gods: There is the oft told tale that the ancients believed in...

That was stipulated at 4.112 What cannot be thought as determined by the limits he sets to philosophy is not the illogical but the nonsensical. This i...

To follow up on my last post about subliming language, according to the Tractatus:

I agree. The fundamental point of the rejection of the Tractatus is that W. had sublimed the logic of language (PI 38, PI 89). That there is a general...

I took another look at this this morning. In the preface the problem is to draw a limit, but the problem at 4.114 it is to set a limit. Drawing a limi...

This is a difficult problem. As we progress there is more to be said, but the question cannot be adequately addressed without discussing large section...

This is the second step in W.’s attempt to draw the limits of thoughts. The first was made at 2.225: In the Investigations W. says: I am going to let ...

What drew me to Wittgenstein was the fact that there was so little agreement as to what he meant. He was an interpretative challenge. The following po...

I have been working on a more detailed reading of §58. Trying to make some of the connections clearer: If we want to understand §58 we first need to u...

Wittgenstein never names the simple objects, he merely assumes they must exist. Plato's Forms on the other hand are the Forms of what W. would call co...

Wittgenstein says: I think the collection of remarks in Culture and Value is the most accessible way to get a sense of what he is up to. The way on se...

I agree. If you read my comments you will see that I have been making connections with earlier sections as well as with the Tractatus. I have held off...

In some ways, but the object/form is quite different than either the Platonic Forms or the idea of matter and form.

At the risk of stating the obvious I would like to draw attention to 1.13: The underlying structure of the world is logical rather than physical. Its ...

Isn't what you are doing here exegetic? Isn't that something that becomes clear through from a careful reading of the text? I agree. It is not a quest...

It was you who mentioned schools:

The Tractatus is an austerely beautiful and simple work. One would do well to read it instead of reading about it. To that end I will be following and...

I don’t think we can forgo a careful reading, an “exegesis”, of the text. The aphoristic nature of his writing does not preclude but demands just such...

The Hippocratic Oath says: "Do no harm". Which is the greater harm, prolonging suffering or hastening death?

For Spinoza God and Nature are the same. They are all inclusive terms. It is not that God has a body but that extension is an attribute of God. Spinoz...

§60 picks up on §46 and §47, the problem of simples and composites. "Further analysed" in §60 returns to the same point. A broom maker might regard a ...

This can mean different things. It might mean an introduction to the major philosophers. It should be stressed that this is just an introduction. It m...

The reason I am pushing this is that it has bearing on the problem of a private language and related issues.