Wittgenstein and life

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Tnerb, Apr 11, 2006.

  1. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    He claimed that wittgenstein invented the concept of ad hominem which is a rediculous claim.

    Clearly writing out is for the purpose of allowing someone to read a book about your view when you are not there and gain a signifigant understanding of it, without being a genius. 1) If you are really good you could explain your views to anybody on the spot by just looking at what points they are not understanding you and 2) Having an idea "clearly written out" is hardly signifigant when it has been used for ever and ever.

    People figured it out without it having been "clearly written out before" and they would again without it. And those would communicate it to others etc. Its useful, but not that important and who actually doesn't is not really signifigant.

    Oh you think the number of people who "agree" is relevant do you? How many thousand different ways can I point out how rediculous this type of thinking really is?

    1. If you are logically correct, then a potentially infinite number of people in the future will agree with you.

    2. If the only knowledge a person is capable of having is the abscence of dissenting information, then true agreement would consist of each person seperately searching for alternative beliefs before accepting one. What happens if you go somewhere like a college and ask the professor how his claims make sense given xy and z? Unless he is a philosophy professor who is a real philosopher, you get an F no matter how good your question is.

    3. You ignored this one already, but its worth rementioning: If you decided whether or not a viewpoint was valid based on how many people already agreed with it, then your contributed agree ment says nothing about the validity of the claim. Yet you contribute to the "number of people who agree with it". Meaning the number of people who agree with it is not in any way indicitave of the validity of the claim.

    The problem is not with your ability to read fallacy definitions, but your ability to understand them and deductively reason about what falls into that category. For every fallacy like that listed, there are a million different ways to use it with many being less obvious than others.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. I don't know It's the pun police, run! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    167
    - What's the point of this?

    - He didn't.

    - Of course it is!

    - With regards to how important a viewpoint has been, how many people agree with it is certainly important. If you see flaws in that proposition, then by all means, go mad.

    - Now you're presupposing that people in the future will be wiser and will have heard of the proposition

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    - Again, you should really get your reading comprehension skills improved before engaging in that kind of chest-thumping rhetoric. I never said how many people support a viewpoint has anything to do with the validity of that viewpoint.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    There isn't really a point to calling you a clown, in fact I didn't realize I actualy wrote that.

    Lots of type of poor arguments can be deductively reasoned to fall into the category of ad hominem arguments.

    simply claiming something is true doesn't make it so.

    How important? My claim is that wittgenstein claims were mostly wrong. Hitler might be important.

    My reading comprehension skills are fine. You were responding to someone challenging the validity of wittgensteins claims not his "importance" whatever it is you think that means.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I was done with this thread, but I do detest being misrepresented...

    You should hone your reading skills instead of your reactionary ones; I never made such a claim.

    Incorrect. There is no room for interpretation, and no need to deduce from fallacies. Ad hominem: Lat. ad: directed at; hominem: man; ergo, an ad hominem fallacy is one where the disputant's character is attacked as opposed to the disputant's argument.

    For example: kriminal99's argument is obviously weak, he can't even spell ridiculous correctly.
     
  8. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    its called a typo genius. Your lucky im not as desperate as you are or this would result in a month long period of people criticizing each others spelling nonstop. (Rest assured there are spelling mistakes in your posts)

    You can attempt to limit the concept of a "fallacy" to a very specific arrangement of text, and miss the point of citing fallacies entirely. The point is to give more momentum to arguments by preventing tactics which do accomplish absolutely nothing. Its absurd to talk about fallacies and then do things that compromise the quality of discussion and are based on the exact same tactic used in a fallacy and then claim it is not a fallacy because it doesn't meet the exact arrangement of text in your definition of a fallacy. (And I say YOUR definition because many people recognize that there are many different ways to use a given fallacy and amend the definition to make it clear to definition nazis like you that it does include them)

    If I claim X is true, and you claim Not X is true, you are implying that I do not know what I am talking about and therefore Not X is true. Or you are implying that you know better what you are talking about so therefore Not X is true. (Which is just the mirror fallacy to ad hominem, appeal to authority) In the complete absence in either case of an ACTUAL ARGUMENT these implied claims are your only foundation which makes your claim fallacious.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2006
  9. I don't know It's the pun police, run! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    167
    - Seriously: he did not! You claimed the people who disagree with you were using ad hominems, he said that there had been none.
     
  10. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    Oh perhaps you are right. One of the statements looked like he was saying Until wittgenstein there was no ad hominem but instead meant that there was no use of no ad hominem in the thread before that point.

    However he claimed that wittgenstein was responsible for several other things that were used far before he mentioned them.
     
  11. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Wittgenstein's later philosophy, that of the Philosophical Investigations, is hardly something that was pushed on philosophers by the scientific community. In fact, science and mathematics are problematic for Wittgenstein.

    Put simply, his position is that the meanings of words are their use in language, and that they have no meaning in isolation. This is why questions such as "What is good?" are meaningless for him. If one says "This is a good cup of coffee", "He's a good basebal player", or even "That was a good thing you did." in the appropriate context, there will be no confusion as to what is meant. "What is good?" removes the word "good" from any context which would give it meaning.

    Since for Wittgenstein all meanings come from use in language, if the understood usage of a word changes, so does the meaning. "Two plus two equals four" is therefore true only because in the context of our language of mathematics, that is how "two", "plus", "equals", and "four" are used, and it is true only so long as they continue to be used that way.
    Most mathematicians and scientists would probably disagree with this.
     
  12. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    You go glaucon

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anyway I was wanting to know what purpose he has to my life right now. If he has any it would be a wonder. If someone could tell me, an answer like that...

    ha!
    I take that philosophy is "narrow minded" as our criminal(k), says. Anyway.
     
  13. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    My bad I was only at the end of page 2

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Well, to say it I basically started this thread with intention at such discussion as I believe you guys are having. I think that you are talking about the things.

    I'm a fool.
     
  14. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    I dont know I'm sure he had some answer to that somewhere, but I don't understand how his claims are even remotely signifigant with regard to something like what is good? It's not saying something like a "tall short person" which our mind recognizes to be non sensical. If nothing else you could simply say that asking what something like good is, is to ask for knowledge of the algorithm that determines when and where we understand to use the word good.
     
  15. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    According to Wittgenstein, questions like "what is good?" are meaningless. That doesn't mean that they are contradictory like "tall short person", only that they are mistakes of language rather than meaningful questions. More like "what is 'tall'?" You could spend a great deal of time trying to determine this. Sure it means "of great height" but, thats not very clear, great relative to what? a dandelion is of great height to a flea, but not to a person. For Wittgenstein, all the philosophical discussion about the nature of "good" is as meaningless as having a discussion about the nature of "tall".
    We could try and find an algorithm to determine when the word "good" or "tall" would be used, but whats the point? Given how the use of language changes, it would likely be impossible, and would certainly be meaningless. In any case, if you accept that the question of "what is good" amounts to asking about how its used in language, you've essentially accepted Wittgenstein's point of view, as most philosophers think that there is more to it than that.
    I'm not necesarilly saying I think Wittgenstein is right, but it is a novel, and highly influential, theory.
     
  16. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    When I say find the algorithm, I am imlying that there is an algorithm of limited scope that allows us to know when to and when not to use words. This makes sense, since it seems our brains are not infinite and could not contain infinitely complex algorithms that allow us to know when to and when not to use words.

    Instead there is some comparitively simple algorithm, of limited scope, which we may even be completely capable of understanding. And doing so would allow us to know all situations where a word such as good or tall would be used ahead of time, and we could alter our definitions to reflect these algorithms thus increasing the efficiency of all communication.

    It isn't that the question "what is good" asks how it is used in language, it's just observing how it is used in language like a detective would is the only way to gain insight into how we TRULY define such concepts internally.
     

Share This Page