Printable View
Ok I'll give you a proposition and you have to use logic to refute it. Everytime someone is successful I'll add another one, and so the game will move on.
This is for the backroom since the ideas that are being talked about are too deep for the people that roam the frontroom.
1.1 "The world is a totallity of facts, not of things."
Refute.
I'm not good at this, but I want to increase posts/day so I'll say facts are based on things.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
And doubtlessly those warnings and bans you wear so proudly beneath your avatar are testament to a higher intellectual pedigree and proof of good grammar. :scholar:
This is part of Wittgenstein's two-tier definition of 'the world' and definitions can not be refuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Stipulative definitions cannot, but lexical definitions and definitions in use (I'm using A.J. Ayer's term here) can. I'm not smart enough or familar enough with LW's work to know whether this is stipulative or not, but doesn't he even say later in the Tractatus that this is nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
He did not call it Tractatus Lexico-Philosophicus for a reason. ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
I see :book:
So that idealology is closer to Fundamentalism then Science?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
What fundament did you have in mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Most religion fundamentalists which have a non-movable static view of the world.
Would the fundamentalist be Wittgenstein or err.. you know, the original poster.. who seems a bit lost in his own thread..Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
:dunce2: :wink3::gossip:
This statement: definitions can not be refuted.
Also didn't Wittgenstein change his definitions later?
Only skimed over philosophy at Uni... methinks perhaps I should go and sharpen up on some of it as the moment I feel like a complete pleb.
Also didn't Wittgenstein change his definitions later?
So he refuted his own irrefutable definition ?
I thought Wittgenstein was a beer . ~:cheers:
:dunce2: :wink3: ~:cheers: :gossip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
He changed his views some ten years later in a new book. Wittgenstein is all about language and its limitations, really. Ordinary language is fine as long as you don't take it our of context and inquire about the 'real' meaning of words, because they have no meaning devoid of their (linguistic) context. Hence his attempts at definition, starting with everyday words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
No he did not change his defintions. He changed his mind about them being correct and that's why he wrote Philosophical Investigations. There are a lot foundametal flaws in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that I won't get into because it would take forever to explain properly.
For now here's another quote that I find important:
"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."
I think this is correct. ~:cheers:
Here is another one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.
How appropriate at this hour, eh?
In my opinion, Chomsky did a good job of refuting Wittgenstein in his response to the critiques of Kripke. But I might be biased, since I'm a fan of Chomsky on political grounds. ~D
Do not eff the ineffable.
The unspeakable truth is Wittgenstein did have a private life...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
Is there a God?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
No. ~:handball:
What created the Big Bang?
Theoretical Scientists. I don't [personally] believe the bing bang existed. It's like asking me what created dgfsdagdfsagsdfasfdasfsdafasdfdsfsdafdsa?
So what is your explanation for the 3 Kelvin background radiation?
Or the way galaxies are going apart from each other?
Or the ratio of neutrons to protons?
God's will ?? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You already know the answers to those questions. I'm not a scientist nor am I that interested in the broader universe. I know that it is infinite. That's it.
I posed a question, according to your quote there should be an answer.
No answer... so the quote is false?
you know that it is infinite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
how?
If you can make a proper question that is specific and not based on crazy theories, then that means there is answer to it. You can have many answers for the same question. They're not all right, they're not all wrong, but they exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio