you are aware that positivism isn’t attributed to wittgenstein and never was, right? there’s a rich history to it in all its forms that wittgenstein had nothing to do with. the logical positivism, which i believe you are referring to, was the brainchild of a handful of dudes who formed the vienna circle. what impressed W about these dude’s style was their emphasis on things like verificationism, and for W this was important because he was already developing heavy skepticism toward traditional philosophy and metaphysics. his tractatus was like a contribution to the ideas that were circulating at the time because he was under the influence of russell and schlick and all those other logicians who were trying to invent a logically perfect/flawless language. and the post-tractatus years, the ‘philosophical investigations’ years wasn’t a complete abandonment of the ideas in his tractatus. the language-game theory is rather an addition to a larger system of thought that began in the tractatus.
so don’t go thinking W ‘pardoned’ traditional philosophy by ‘kicking down the ladder’ and admitting a logically perfect language was impossible. his language-game theory doesn’t excuse philosophy to run wild. it rather places philosophical language into its proper context, something which is certainly not on par with the natural sciences. this is an important point because philosophy likes to pretend it is. this is why you see so many philosophical statements that masquerade as empirical propositions. the stuff you write is a wonderful exhibition of this very case and point.
it’s not what you say is true, but how you go about deciding what you said is true, is true. that’s the mark of the sciences. the method of verification.
a philosopher, on the other hand, can just tell you something, and then present a series of supporting arguments that mean jack-shit.
‘words’ don’t mean nuthing, dude. they’re just sounds and/or pictures. its what they signify that is meaningful. what makes language so sneaky is that it creates a world of its own in which meaning and sense is made by reference to other words, while utilizing rules of grammar. so for example, when you see a predicate/subject relationship in a statement, you don’t notice that neither the subject or the predicate are nonsensical… only that there is an operating rule at work… and this creates the impression that sense is being made. you’re more often seeing rules, not concepts.
without the Jomolos, the transvective Noumeri cannot be instantiated, and therefore the Haminus remains ineffable.
see that? see all the neologisms. see the grammatical structure of the sentence? you swear to god something’s going on there, but it ain’t. what your seeing is proper syntax and grammar, not conceptual content.
Prometh: You want to go into the superficial niceties of who came up with what idea first? Are you going to make a point that way? How many members of the Vienna circle have you read? Because I grit my teeth and read all of them, despite my visceral repulsion. Though as I have said continually throughout this thread: that revulsion is a sign of potential growth, which you should accept and embrace- and even from these fools, there are useful concepts I gained, just as there were tools I stole from Marx, who I also personally revile. At bottom- and nothing you said is in any way a mark against it: the tractatus is a form of positivist epistemology, which Wittgenstein turned his back on.
Like I said, you keep implying you’ve got something for me and then it’s one excuse after another; first was nah I’m too busy watching Fast and Furious, then it was nah what’s more important is that you’re a hermetic recluse with a drug problem; now it is words have no meaning man so why argue you. Language games are created as specialized systems of dialogue between people participating in that game under accepted rules: this “fantastic nonsense” of Western metaphysics is just such a game, and it has a very elaborate system of rules that various people have accepted and participate in, though I am sorry that you’ve found it too difficult to learn. But it wouldn’t be very pertinent for a checkers player to flip the board over a game of chess while proclaiming it was nonsense- though many have done similar things. And far more relevant than Wittgenstein is the entire field of semiotics and Piercian triads, generative anthropology’s linguistics, etc. but what is the point with you?
And psychoanalysis begs to differ- regarding the “ruin” of transcendental German idealism, which is actually doing better than ever.
If all you want to talk about are things you can physically touch or see, or assign a neural correlate to: then yeah, we have little to talk about.
Lol I never even considered convincing you of anything. It is what very liberatingly frees one to fully and accurately expose one’s theories. That there is no risk of convincing your interlocutor of them.
Bah, humbug.
But listen. That is why agreement is the true goal between philosophers. Because it is never reached, it is always found.
Parodites: Yeah I had a great time man. You’re a great writer with an astounding vocab, btw.
p.s. metaphysics begins and ends with Spinoza and Kant. The whole gamut was run, the only real metaphysical questions were properly posed and answered, and philosophy has been over since.
“p.s. metaphysics begins and ends with Spinoza and Kant. The whole gamut was run, the only real metaphysical questions were properly posed and answered, and philosophy has been over since.”
This all then begs the question… has this always been so, or is this a recent adaptive-reaction to an increased constantly-changing world, that we are now biologically-obligated to adapt to, or die? of which this, there is evidence of… seemingly healthy humans being found dead, with no detectable cause or symptoms.
I have taken into account others’ posts and refutations to some of your points, in my reply.
