> On 7 Oct 2020, at 12:30, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm in agreement with the certain Wittgensteinian brand that sees the only > thing philosophy is good for is just to "clarify" the word messes other > subjects make. > > > Philosophy as an Activity of Clarification > > Wittgenstein emphasizes the difference between his philosophy and traditional > philosophy by saying that his philosophy is an activity rather than a body of > doctrine. We can identify definite positions and theories in the writings of > most traditional philosophers but not with Wittgenstein. In fact, > Wittgenstein’s writings are distinctly antitheoretical: he believes that the > very idea of a philosophical theory is a sign of confusion. He conceives of > the role of philosophy as an activity by which we unravel the sorts of > confusion that manifest themselves in traditional philosophy. This activity > carries with it no theories or doctrines but rather aims at reaching a point > where theories and doctrines cease to confuse us. In the Philosophical > Investigations, Wittgenstein writes, “the work of the philosopher consists in > assembling reminders for a particular purpose.” That is, his ideal > philosopher works to remind those confused by abstract theorizing of the > ordinary uses of words and to set their thinking in order. The clarity > achieved through this kind of activity is not the clarity of a coherent, > all-encompassing system of thought but rather the clarity of being free from > being too influenced by any systems or theories.
Usually I avoid the term “philosophy”. If this word is taken in its etymological sense, it is the “love of wiseness” and this is not teachable through words and course. Wiseness is arguably a protagaorean virtue, which means that it goes only without saying, and it should be remain in the streets or in a coffee-bar. But metaphysics and/or theology (I take those two expressions as synonymous) should on the contrary be brought back at the faculty of science so that we can use doubt and a critical skeptical mind in the domain, and keep higher the level of rigour and clarity, as well as imposing clear verification means. The separation of theology from science has made the whole human domain, including psychology, metaphysics, theology mainly in the hands of professional charlatans. Obscurantism, and its exploration by tyrans, or by rotten corporations (cf prohibition) is a direct result of that separation. This does not mean that some philosopher have ket the platonician rigour, even when Aristotelian, but they are always rather exceptional, and often perverted most f the time by their “disciples” or by the academic curriculum. The subject of philosophy can very a lot from universities to universities. In some country philosophy is classified in literature, and in others, some part of it is taught in the faculty of science, sometimes as option, like “philosophical logic” (which means non standard logic, and is also taught in some course of Computer science, to engineers and AI researchers). I am often amazed that some philosophers defend relativism, but want to keep a clearcut “absolute” distinction between science and philosophy, and their curriculum, where there are none, imo. It is just people who try to understand the nature of reality. With mechanism, this has become science. Note that a scientific is agnostic on the nature of reality. Physicist usually don’t claim to know the metaphysical truth, except that some are not aware that the existence of an *ontological* universe is a theory/assumption (which I have shown to be incompatible with Mechanism, in a testable way, and the tests add evidence to mechanism, and refute Materialism (for those not eliminating consciousness at least). Very often, something dubbed philosophical becomes scientific/refutable through some progress. When I was young, many physicists around me mocked the EPR paper as being “philosophical” which meant for them “utterly uninteresting”, but they have to change their mind (and some did) after Bell and Aspect. Another such notion was the notion of microbes, considered as metaphysical until the invention of the microscope, which were at first forbidden by the first positivists..). I have often read or heard that “modern science” is materialist, but that is only an old christian or materialist propaganda, usually by those who claim to have solved the mind-body problem, or even worst: that there is no mind-body problem. Around all this, I would say that the young Wittgenstein was completely delusional (although not entirely non-interesting) in his young age, but more and more lucid on this when growing up. His “on certainty” (his last text I think) is better than his celebrated “tractatus”. Bruno PS sorry for the delays, super-busy October. > > > https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/wittgenstein/themes/ > > > @philipthrift > > On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 6:18:17 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote: > Philosophy really means love of sophistry, philos sophist. Socrates objected > terribly to the notion he was a sophist. His main rival was Gorgias, a > sophist. > > LC > > On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 3:24:19 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote: > > > The Invention of Philosophy <https://existentialcomics.com/comic/362> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e593b809-aa04-4d22-bdce-133cd6803fa1n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e593b809-aa04-4d22-bdce-133cd6803fa1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86591903-9D51-41F5-AF0C-A3445C712AFE%40ulb.ac.be.
