1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellBoth.... and not both, at least for me, as discrete periods. No, both as one movement, one living torsion. Rite building up a charge, carrying it's participants beyond in an explosion (implosion?)...along with the author. A great mirror shattered, surpassed and yet curiously reflecting and reflected in every language game. And a discourse which indirectly shows what cannot be said...goading and luring one to see the real thing via all the foreground of a parable.... a new modality of the peculiar character of the Tractatus.
I am interested to know why a few people have put Wittgenstein in alongside modern Continental philosophers....Are we talking Tractatus Wittgenstein, "later" Wittgenstein, or both? Because if both them I am confused.
Christ! Wittgenstein is ancient! There is no position "early" or "late", only the way and it's apt manifestations.
Surprises me that so much of Wittgenstein is invisible...and thus the relation to the past and to others. It's screaming at me in the Monk biography I finally got around to reading. Amazing really.
4 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageError and "all that business"? You might have to elaborate a bit. I cannot claim to be a Nietzsche scholar... nor would I feel impelled to defend him in every respect. But I do see beautiful philosophical passion in his work... and may enjoy reading him more than just about anyone. But I'm of the odd opinion that people should generally stay away from the stuff.
What do you make of all that business about Error?
Is the "Error business" something related to his views of Truth.. the notion that we are ineradicably involved in the stuff of fiction... and thus, perhaps, thrown into the quandary of simultaneously distinquishing between error/truth or fiction/reality while wondering if the boundaries themselves are real or fictional?
Ask yourself: Is the difference between reality and fiction real or fictional?
This is a difficult topography.
But Western philosophy begins in the stuff of Platonic fiction. We have the profound and comical alchemy where "eidos" is twisted from the look of something in to something that cannot even bee seen! And then people tend to doubly fictionalize Plato though by blinding themselves with talk of "A Platonic Theory of...". One might say a sting got left behind. But Socrates is not unaware of what he is doing in these stories - look right in the middle of the Phaedo.