3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNietzsche and Wittgenstein (by which I mean the "later" Wittgenstein) did not really build on previous mainstream philosophy; it would be more accurate (though not completely accurate) to say they sought to destroy it. And if you look at current philosophical research, I doubt either has been anything like as influential as some of their advocates would have you believe. Take Wittgenstein; at Cambridge around 2000 there was only one senior member of the Philosophy department who could be called anything like a Wittgensteinian (I'd argue she wasn't, really). And that's at the "home" of Wittgenstein.
Evolution in philosophy...a terrible idea. But who would you choose as better examples?
They are still outsiders. Hardly surprising in Wittgenstein's case; if he was right, "Philosophy" as understood in our universities virtually ends.
Better example? Hmm. I guess any of the later key players in the development of logic and analytical philosophy in the west. (Russell? Quine? You'd probably want to ask bbarr.)
Originally posted by dottewellI agree with that.
Nietzsche and Wittgenstein (by which I mean the "later" Wittgenstein) did not really build on previous mainstream philosophy; it would be more accurate (though not completely accurate) to say they sought to destroy it.
Perhaps bbarr is moving on the cusp of philosophical evolution...
Originally posted by dottewellBut didn't Wittgenstein work closely with Russell??
Nietzsche and Wittgenstein (by which I mean the "later" Wittgenstein) did not really build on previous mainstream philosophy; it would be more accurate (though not completely accurate) to say they sought to destroy it. And if you look at current philosophical research, I doubt either has been anything like as influential as some of their advocates would ha ...[text shortened]... nalytical philosophy in the west. (Russell? Quine? You'd probably want to ask bbarr.)
Anyway that aside, if religion and philosophy, both preceptions of the world, have not moved on what can we use to extrcate a deeper truth and meaning?
Originally posted by Vladamir no1"Early" Wittgenstein. Different kettle of fish.
But didn't Wittgenstein work closely with Russell??
Anyway that aside, if religion and philosophy, both preceptions of the world, have not moved on what can we use to extrcate a deeper truth and meaning?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHis early work and the Tractatus were very much influenced by his work with Russell, as VladamirNo1 says - although his thought became far more sophisticated than Russell's. His later work, as far as I am concerned, has little in common with either earlier Western philosophy or any other systems that I am aware of (although I'm very Western-biased). Others would disagree.
Idly grasping at conversational straws--did his ideas have anything in common with any other systems?
I can't actually recommend any introduction to Wittgenstein; I'd go straight to the source. Ray Monk's biography was very good on Wittgenstein the man.
Originally posted by dottewellSo Wittgeinstein had it right, we need stop making presuppositions in defining an giving meaning to life?
His early work and the Tractatus were very much influenced by his work with Russell, as VladamirNo1 says - although his thought became far more sophisticated than Russell's. His later work, as far as I am concerned, has little in common with either earlier Western philosophy or any other systems that I am aware of (although I'm very Western-biased). Others ...[text shortened]... I'd go straight to the source. Ray Monk's biography was very good on Wittgenstein the man.
Originally posted by Vladamir no1How about looking inward, rather than outward, for answers?
Anyway that aside, if religion and philosophy, both preceptions of the world, have not moved on what can we use to extrcate a deeper truth and meaning?
What is the nature of the human mind? What is its essence? Are thoughts, ideas, philosophies, and emotions the mind, or is it something far more profound than that?
Who spends time trying to understand their own mind's nature, as opposed to spinning countless external fantasies based on faulty, ego-driven perception?
Originally posted by eagles54Many philosophers have practiced introspection...
How about looking inward, rather than outward, for answers?
What is the nature of the human mind? What is its essence? Are thoughts, ideas, philosophies, and emotions the mind, or is it something far more profound than that?
Who spends time trying to understand their own mind's nature, as opposed to spinning countless external fantasies based on faulty, ego-driven perception?
Originally posted by eagles54Many philosophers have practiced introversion...
How about looking inward, rather than outward, for answers?
What is the nature of the human mind? What is its essence? Are thoughts, ideas, philosophies, and emotions the mind, or is it something far more profound than that?
Who spends time trying to understand their own mind's nature, as opposed to spinning countless external fantasies based on faulty, ego-driven perception?
Originally posted by Vladamir no1You misunderstand my statement.
Many philosophers have practiced introversion...
I am not talking about introverted thinking or philosophy. I'm talking about looking directly at the mind that is beyond thinking, the source from which thought originates.
Originally posted by eagles54Ah, the structures of the mind, but isn't that what Levi-Strauss attempted to do by applying structural linguistic paradigms to the anthropological sphere. it didn't work, he ended up showing the structures of aesthetic perception through his analysis of myths and totemism, but he did attempt to do what you're suggesting...
You misunderstand my statement.
I am not talking about introverted thinking or philosophy. I'm talking about looking directly at the mind that is beyond thinking, the source from which thought originates.