I'd caution against reading Wittgenstein unless you've really read a lot of hard, analytical philosophy first. There's a propensity to start in acceptance of the positivist's viewpoint and then, having gone for the big W, to be left scarred forever and to dismiss almost all other stuff because W is so damned good at convincing you he's right.
I'd read Russell, Davidson and Kripke first and if you want an in between try W.V. Quine (my personal favourite). Then try Mr W.
Originally posted by Starrman I'd caution against reading Wittgenstein unless you've really read a lot of hard, analytical philosophy first. There's a propensity to start in acceptance of the positivist's viewpoint and then, having gone for the big W, to be left scarred forever and to dismiss almost all other stuff because W is so damned good at convincing you he's right.
I'd read R ...[text shortened]... irst and if you want an in between try W.V. Quine (my personal favourite). Then try Mr W.
Originally posted by Starrman I try not to think about him as it clouds a lot of what else there is to think about. If he's right I'd like to get there on my own.
Originally posted by bjohnson407 right about what?
Everything 🙂
I'll admit to being a little swayed by my tutor on this, but he speaks so highly and often about the might of Captain W that I'm purposefully avoiding him, lest he cloud my judgement. Probably a fake totem in the course of the real, but nevertheless one which I have.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage A bit of Wittgenstein can't hurt. I've got a copy of the later book. Is there a point to reading both? Which do you agree with more?
I might just go off the deep end though and immerse myself in Vico. For some reason that book gives off a rare buzz.
I wouldn't bother with the Tractatus unless you're really interested in tracing Wittgenstein's career. Other philosophers -- like Ayer and Carnap -- said alot of the same things in a more readable way.
The Philosophical Investigations on the other hand is one of the two most important philosophical works of the 20th century. Personally, I agree with it alot more than anything the logical positivists ever did. I thank him for thwarting the quest for the logically perfect langauge and for seeing meaning for what it is, use value in a langauge community, rather than truth function.
I'll admit to being a little swayed by my tutor on this, but he speaks so highly and often about the might of Captain W that I'm purposefully avoiding him, lest he cloud my judgement. Probably a fake totem in the course of the real, but nevertheless one which I have.
I'd say the sooner ya turn away from logical positivism, the better. Wittgenstein was a great philosopher, but that should make More atrractive to read, not less. 😉
Originally posted by bjohnson407 The Philosophical Investigations on the other hand is one of the two most important philosophical works of the 20th century.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Wittgenstein attracts me ... Heidegger repels. Why read him?
Aside from being the greatest philosopher of the 20th century (because, sadly, the 20th wasn't a very impressive century for philosophy) Heidegger's project of rethinking the question of the meaning of being led him to some of the most original and profound insights about the human condition, thought and being.
I know this is vague, but if you tell me what draws you to Wittgenstein and repells you from Heidegger, I might be able to to be more specific.
Originally posted by Palynka Is there a logical positivist that doesn't confound knowledge with scientific knowledge?
That depends on what you mean by confound. One might say that the logical positivists had a more rigid distinction between scientific and non-scientific "knowledge" than any other philosophers before or since.
But if your asking if there were any logical positivists that didn't see the scientific method of emprical verification as the epistemic paradigm, then I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
What kind of unscientific knowledge do you have in mind?
Originally posted by bjohnson407 That depends on what you mean by confound. One might say that the logical positivists had a more rigid distinction between scientific and non-scientific "knowledge" than any other philosophers before or since.
But if your asking if there were any logical positivists that didn't see the scientific method of emprical verification as the epistemic paradi ...[text shortened]... m pretty sure the answer is no.
What kind of unscientific knowledge do you have in mind?
Originally posted by Palynka Did knowledge begin with the scientific method?
Me pretending to be a positivist:
Real knowledge (justified true belief) has always adhered to some sort of principle of emprical verification. If a religious person said "god exists but is invisible," then he does not have any "knowledge" but rather a meaningless utterance loaded with poorly defined concepts.
Seriously, what is this "knowledge" you're talking about? Are you saying that any old thought a person has counts as knowledge?
A.J. Ayer
07 May '08 07:09
Back to Top