That would presuppose understanding as an end goal in itself, whereas to me it seems that understanding mediates between linguistic communication and engagement in practical and cultural tasks, the success of which could serve as a way to gauge the 'rightness' or usefulness of assertions. If metaphysical discourse only results in pale, unathletic professors dedicating their lives to producing tomes which are unreadable and in any case soon forgotten, this would, to me, throw the validity of any such metaphysics into question.
>>676513 I think we may have come to the same point by two paths here, because understanding does fulfill the intermediary role that you've outlined.
To take Wittgenstein's own example of the builders language, the participants in construction must have a clear conception of all the terms of the language in order to accomplish their end (lay the bricks, raise the timbers etc.)
We've both said that (the actionable consequence of a speech-act) is it's key element
The importance of the speech act seems unavoidable, but the philosophies oriented around it (Austin, Searle, Grice) unsatisfying as that area of linguistics has not significantly advanced or been able to develop sophisticated mathematical approaches since then. This is a respect in which I find Claude Shannon's work more promising.
Logic and language aside, I think the asceticism both displayed toward the end of their lives is interesting.
Goedel certainly didn't share W's hostility towards the natural sciences, which I have always felt as a miss-step on W's part. It's not uncommon for Derrida exegetes to attempt to legitimise D by drawing parallels to W's emphasising of literature and culture.
Goedel also strikes me as more methodical and transparent, whereas W was prone to making oracle-like pronouncements without necessarily clarifying how he arrived at them.
I feel that W is more interesting as a historical person but perhaps less rigorous and constructive than Goedel.
the problem of the natural science is that they are based on exciting, manipulating things in order to reach knowledge, truth, universality and other fantasies. so far it fails and they cannot even motivate their stance.
doing the contrary, which means striving for stillness, of body and mind, gives far better results since it gives certainty: certainty that we feel is less personal and less permanent that we notice when exciting things, plus certainty that happiness goes thru stillness and that once stillness is achieved, there is nothing more to life...
if you have faith in physics, you believe that there is a the renormalization group floating around, also known as GOD, always renormalizing bare masses and other abstract parameters of elementary particles.
There were actually a number of great philosophers that came after W. However, that's beside the point, as this thread is about his philosophy, and not about whether you personally judge the rest of us smart enough to understand it.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.