On Certainty

File: image.jpg (17KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 225x225px

>>8850261
That's not Mein Kampf, cuck

>>8850267
haha

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh9mp_syc8c

>>8850277
Amazing.

Thought provoking stuff.

>>8850261
skepticism is fine. what happens when a hallucinating schizo tells you

"here is one horn. here is another. i am the devil and this is hell."

>>8850312
He will learn through interaction with others how to use the words in each particular game correctly and incorrectly.

I am just getting into Wittgenstein this past semester, though I tried fitfully to understand chunks of the Philosophical Investigations last year.

Wittgenstein is absolutely brilliant in the places where he's been illuminated to me so far. I just posted in another thread that I've been using Peter Winch to get into him, and I'm getting into reading Rhees, Cavell, Diamond, Garver over the next few months.

>>8850317
why is the the schizo is the only one to learn

What are some essential works to read before getting into wittgenstein?

>>8850320
There are many interpretations of Wittgenstein's later philosophy; Does he promote behaviourism? Is he a skeptic? Does his later work form a development of the previous work or a complete rejection?

One should watch themselves so that they do not become obsessed.

I advise reading McGinn's 'Routledge Guidebook to Wittgenstein and the Philosophical Investigations' and Kenny's 'Wittgenstein'.

I have been meaning to read Rhees's On Certainty explanation but I fear it may be a waste of time.

Although Rhees was with Wittgenstein often, Witgenstein's so called 'disciples' often misinterpreted his work and had a strange sort of paternal obsession over him. Some strange form of Stockholm syndrome lol.

>>8850343
Here's my guide:

http://pastebin.com/FLb1fKLQ

>>8850362
Thanks anon

>>8850312
>>8850317
I think in this case you'd have to say the schizo simply can't be understood, or at least only unreliably/intermittently understood.

If he can't follow a rule, if you can't "see" what he "means," then he is not intelligible. In your example you're referring to G.E. Moore's famous bon mot, which Wittgenstein talks about directly. But Moore's rule is precisely intelligible to us in one sense, if we are inclined to scientific empiricism, and unintelligible in another (if, like Wittgensteinians, we have spent the last two generations reading Kuhn and Koyre and debunking positivism, and we know to be suspicious of "self-evident" appeals to meta-logical inferences).

It reminds me of Foucault in the introduction to The Order of Things, the "aphasiacs" who cannot follow or establish a pattern. They are as unintelligible to themselves as they are to us because they just keep doing one thing and then doing another. There is no way to define "the same thing" for them, no rules to abide by. But say we have a guy who is perfectly sane (or so it seems), and who is certainly doing something that he insists is self-consistent and "makes sense," but in whose patterns YOU still can't discern a pattern. The best you can do is ask: "I don't see what you mean." He can try to SHOW us, he can try to give us the CONTEXT of what he means, but ultimately we will either be able to follow the rule he is following, or not. And if it truly is internal to him, and he can't explain it to anyone, then it is not a rule. To butcher Wittgenstein somewhere, where he talks about a man drawing with a compass in a certain way that seems nonsensical to others, we may say that the patterns seem to "intimate" themselves to him, but not that he is following a rule.

This brings you to the private language argument, namely that there can be no private language. This is very contentious and I have trouble with it myself, frankly. I think it's one of the wigglier areas of Wittgenstein, even within the school I'm most (still not very) familiar with.

>>8850351
Yeah, I agree completely. Thanks for the recommendations. I've been advised to avoid Kripke like the plague. I think Rhees is legit. But I am a nascent fanboy of the New Wittgenstein school, which seems hot on Rhees.

I definitely agree about the cult of personality aspects. Actually I was very wary to get into Wittgenstein because his disciples are usually so taken with him, it can get almost reverential and cause verbal tics. But I think I was mistaken.

>>8850368
I'll be updating it and adding more sites etc. so if there are any Wittgenstein threads in the future, check them out, I might post an update. (That isn't to say the guide is foolproof or even "good")

>>8850343
Wittgenstein has fallen out of favour recently, and old interpretations of him are minefields. I don't think you can go wrong with Rhees or Anscombe, but I would avoid most others. Especially be wary of people who cherry-pick from Wittgenstein while clearly not ever having studied him seriously.

Like I said above, I'm trying to get into New Wittgenstein, and the recommendation to me has basically been that you should check out On Certainty if you like, but basically you want to read the Philosophical Investigations alongside the eight-volume (yes, seriously) Hacker & Baker commentary, and then begin reading other commentaries by Newton Garver, Cora Diamond, Stanley Cavell, James Conant, etc.

>>8850388
>I've been advised to avoid Kripke like the plague.

I am not sure about this.

I certainly agree with McGinn that Wittgenstein is promoting a more behaviourist, therapeutic practice and not exactly a sceptical approach that Kripke employs.

Nevertheless, it is certainly useful to read Kripke's 'Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language' as it is a great book which really gets the noggin joggin', if you'll pardon the phrase.

File: hm.png (52KB, 946x134px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 946x134px

>>8850420

File: 1442863132620.png (289KB, 600x660px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 600x660px

Uncertainty is itself a certentity

OC is just a part of his last writings. Remarks on colour and Last writings on Psychology V1 and 2 are to be read with it. And if you actually want to understand a single phrase, his entire published works.

The publications are a mess and sometimes misguide, it is better to have von Wright's catalogue at hand to know the actual order of the writings.

>>8850392
>Especially be wary of people who cherry-pick from Wittgenstein while clearly not ever having studied him seriously.
why?

>>8850404
No, I agree that I should read it at some point for sure. But I don't want to queer the pitch. Wittgenstein interpretation is too much to just dive in and read things haphazardly. I just need to keep the traditions separate, for my own sanity.

>>8851177
Like this guy says >>8850986 understanding Wittgenstein is a huge undertaking that requires reading a shitload of him and a shitload of commentary. He's obscure and gnomic enough even in his own right, but on top of that he was misappropriated by positivists and post-positivists/naturalists for so long that it's like a graveyard of misunderstandings. Other disciplines frequently skim through these things at some point in grad school, get some incorrect reading of Wittgenstein from a half-remembered Kripke article, and then quote-mine the Philosophical Investigations later.

A lot of his points are laconic and pithy so people confuse them for zen koans or something. But you should really have a systematic approach to Wittgenstein if you want to get the most out of him.

>>8851338
so what does Wittgenstein says in OC?

>greatest philosophical work of modern times

are you sure about that?

>>8850388
>verbal tics
This is interesting to you have any examples? I've actually heard similar things before, and I myself am obsessed with Wittgenstein. In fat, I've celebrated his birthday for the past two years and plan on continuing to do so.