Wittgenstein For Dummies...

[suckmymuscle]

  If you can figure Wittgenstein out, you are on your way to making sense of Tbombz's and Falcon's posts.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[tbombz]

not sure whats so hard to understand there. he has a very simple idea

[StickStickly]

not sure whats so hard to understand there. he has a very simple idea

I don't like agnostics.... they are silly

[freespirit]

I don't like agnostics.... they are silly

Why?

[tbombz]

I don't like agnostics.... they are silly

i know you are connecting that somehow, but its beyond me...  how does that related to the video or my comment?   

[suckmymuscle]

not sure whats so hard to understand there. he has a very simple idea

  Yes, a very simple idea. Go read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and tell me that is simple. Please summarize that in a single sentence if it is so simple.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Van_Bilderass]

6.4311 

[tbombz]

  Yes, a very simple idea. Go read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and tell me that is simple. Please summarize that in a single sentence if it is so simple.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

sure. (it is pretty much what wittgensteing did in that video you posted)

There are no real philosophical problems, only differences in language.

 

[The Abdominal Snoman]

The message gets muddied by the professors Ego

[tbombz]

The message gets muddied by the professors Ego

  excuse me??

[tbombz]

wittgenstein is alright.


if yall are interested in some good philosophy, heres two of my favorites:


Gottfried Leibniz

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/


William James

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/

[suckmymuscle]

sure. (it is pretty much what wittgensteing did in that video you posted)

There are no real philosophical problems, only differences in language.

 

  That's not what he says at all. It is not "differences" in language, but rather the inability of language to express logical propositions without contradictions because language cannnot describe thoughts accurately like an equation describes it.

  Mathematics has solutions because equations describe logical propositions accurately. Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory.

  I think it's funny that philosophy students take two years of hardcore logic followed by two years of hardcore analytical philosophy before they even get to Wittgenstein, and yet "Tbombz" from Getbig things he has it all figured out.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[StickStickly]

Why?

Because why don't we listen and just discard all knowledge and rediscover it every day. We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. Why bother even exchanging knowledge..its all pointless. Might as will sit alone by ourselves and bob our heads up and down.

[tbombz]

  That's not what he says at all. It is not "differences" in language, but rather the inability of language to express logical propositions without contradictions because language cannnot describe thoughts accurately like an equation describes it.

  Mathematics has solutions because equations describe logical propositions accurately. Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory.

  I think it's funny that philosophy students take two years of hardcore logic followed by two years of hardcore analytical philosophy before they even get to Wittgenstein, and yet "Tbombz" from Getbig things he has it all figured out.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

um, you asked for one sentence. I gave you one sentence. all you did was explain in more detail what my sentence meant.

[suckmymuscle]

um, you asked for one sentence. I gave you one sentence. all you did was explain in more detail what my sentence meant.

  No, what I said is completely different from what I said. Not even in the same ballpark. Sorry. It has nothing to do with differences in language. Nothing!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[tbombz]

Because why don't we listen and just discard all knowledge and rediscover it every day. We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. Why bother even exchanging knowledge..its all pointless. Might as will sit alone by ourselves and bob our heads up and down.

somebodies in an awefully pessimistic mood.    

have you ever benefited from knowledge recieved or knowledge earned? the answer is of course a resounding yes. if it werent so then you would not exist. proof that the exchange of knowledge, the build up of knowledge, is beneficial and worthy of time.


now, about it all being pointless in the end anyways? well, most likely true. however, you havent commited suicide yet, so obviously you do see a "point" in the present, and thus you should see a point in the buildup of knowledge.



again... i dont see how that comment relates to agnosticism nor to i see how agnosticism relates o the original post.. ijm just working with what you give me.

[tbombz]

  No, what I said is completely different from what I said. Not even in the same ballpark. Sorry. It has nothing to do with differences in language. Nothing!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

 


"Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory."

= differences in language

 

[StickStickly]

somebodies in an awefully pessimistic mood.    

have you ever benefited from knowledge recieved or knowledge earned? the answer is of course a resounding yes. if it werent so then you would not exist. proof that the exchange of knowledge, the build up of knowledge, is beneficial and worthy of time.


now, about it all being pointless in the end anyways? well, most likely true. however, you havent commited suicide yet, so obviously you do see a "point" in the present, and thus you should see a point in the buildup of knowledge.



again... i dont see how that comment relates to agnosticism nor to i see how agnosticism relates o the original post.. ijm just working with what you give me.

He spoke on inferring meanings from words and i related it to agnosticism. The ability to infer things is what knowledge is based on. We test that knowledge and if the results are the same we hold on to those thoughts.

[tbombz]

He spoke on inferring meanings from words and i related it to agnosticism. The ability to infer things is what knowledge is based on. We test that knowledge and if the results are the same we hold on to those thoughts.

ok, but how exactly are you relating that to agnosticism?

[StickStickly]

ok, but how exactly are you relating that to agnosticism?

The example of the lion. I saw a similarity there. We can observe the lion and infer things from its actions.

[cephissus]

  Yes, a very simple idea. Go read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and tell me that is simple. Please summarize that in a single sentence if it is so simple.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence.

[tbombz]

The example of the lion. I saw a similarity there. We can observe the lion and infer things from its actions.

your either over or under my head. dont get me wrong, im not trying to bate you into an argument not am i disagreeing with you- just trying to get into the heart of your sentiment, as i know your an intelligent deep thinking guy and educated in philosophy


are you saying that we can infer from the universe, from existence, whether or not god exists? and that agnostics should choose one side or the other based on what they infer from their experience??

[Tito24]

the road to zion

[StickStickly]

your either over or under my head. dont get me wrong, im not trying to bate you into an argument not am i disagreeing with you- just trying to get into the heart of your sentiment, as i know your an intelligent deep thinking guy and educated in philosophy


are you saying that we can infer from the universe, from existence, whether or not god exists? and that agnostics should choose one side or the other based on what they infer from their experience??

No.. technically everyone is agnostic. I can't prove that there isn't a god but on a 10 point scale, 10 being an atheist, and 1 being an agnostic, i am a 9.9999999999. I can't disprove the tooth fairy or the mumba at the bottom of the sea but i choose not to believe in those things. So technically i am an agnostic because i am not 100% sure there is no god but chances are good that there isn't one. Just as chances are good that there is not a talking tea pot that orbits somewhere between earth and mars.

[suckmymuscle]

"Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory."

= differences in language

  "SIGH"

  And the really sad thing is that you really believe that you're right...

SUCKMYMUSCLE