What questions cannot be dissolved by wittgenstein's games?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » What questions cannot be dissolved by wittgenstein's games? » What questions cannot be dissolved by wittgenstein's games?

What questions cannot be dissolved by wittgenstein's games?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

What questions cannot be dissolved by wittgenstein's games?

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 01/21/09 - 10:06 AM: Subject: What questions cannot be dissolved by wittgenstein's games?	#1
Wittgenstein believed that philosophical questions were a type of language puzzle, a trap which catches philosophers like a bottle might catch a fly. The philosopher, according to him, may be unable to even detect they were trapped. I do not know if he meant that all philosophical problems are only language games, or if he thought some are (or even most??)? Are philosophical problems mostly, sometimes, or always language puzzles which can and should be dissolved with closer inspection? If their are exceptions, what are they?

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 962

Posted 01/21/09 - 11:10 AM:	#2
Really interesting topic. Thanks. I expect to be following the discussion avidly, hoping to hear well-informed insights. I'd like to point out that many of the kinds of question that were once considered to be philosophy questions are now considered to be science questions. And perhaps theology has nearly been split off, too? I get the impression that what I think of as mainstream Analytic philosophy pretty much ignores theology, and even ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics, perhaps? Is this really the case? Has philosophy pretty much evolved into a general method of analysis of the meaning of questions and statements rather than being a body of knowledge claims in the traditional branches?
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 01/21/09 - 12:18 PM:	#3
I think W thought that philosophical problems that were not simply language game mistakes were problems of some actual discipline, and thus were not philosophy proper.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 01/22/09 - 05:58 AM:	#4
brainpharte wrote: I'd like to point out that many of the kinds of question that were once considered to be philosophy questions are now considered to be science questions. And perhaps theology has nearly been split off, too? I think of philosophy as a kind of "meta enterprise", which seeks to perhaps disolve the confusion which arises in many diciplin. Using logic, various "language games", and some real intelectual honesty, I believe it is posible to engage in philosophical questions successfully. Of course, this is sometimes very difficult. especially the "intellectual honesty" part. It is sometimes hard to be unattached to a particular idea, and becoming attached to it easily leads someone astray. brainpharte wrote: I get the impression that what I think of as mainstream Analytic philosophy pretty much ignores theology, and even ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics, perhaps? Is this really the case? It (as usual) depends upon your definitions of these things, and who you listen to. The things you mention I would place squarely in the box of "what philosophy deals with", as these are precisely the types of areas in which confusion arises. brainpharte wrote: Has philosophy pretty much evolved into a general method of analysis of the meaning of questions and statements rather than being a body of knowledge claims in the traditional branches? If you ask Wittgenstein about this I am sure he would say that philosophy is not a body of lore but rather a activity. I have great sympaty for what he says. So is Wittgenstein correct? are their no problems we can think of which are "really problems"? Can all philosophical problems be dissolved, or was Wittgenstein incorrect about this? Lets look at some examples:- Free will V determinism? Materialism/monism V dualism? Materialism/monism (reductionism?) v conciousness/quallia (folk psychology? Is their something rather than nothing? I can think of more questions and examples of topics - but are any of them actually problems? Edited by Makarismos on 01/22/09 - 02:30 PM

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 01/23/09 - 03:27 AM:	#5
Are there uncaused events? Why is one kind of government better than another? Can we perceive things as they are? Is the moon made of cheese, only not normal cheese, but a special kind of cheese that is undetectably different from moon rocks? Perhaps not the last one.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2129

Posted 01/23/09 - 06:21 AM:	#6
When is a question a philosophical question, and when is it a scientific question? What's the difference? Makarismos wrote: If you ask Wittgenstein about this I am sure he would say that philosophy is not a body of lore but rather a activity. If you ask Wittgenstein, I doubt you will get any reply (sorry, couldn't resist that)
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5124

Posted 01/23/09 - 06:48 AM:	#7
reincarnated wrote: When is a question a philosophical question, and when is it a scientific question? What makes a question "philosophical" is its reflexive, meta-discursive, character AND that it cannot be answered by propositional statements. "Scientific" questions, on the other hand, are propositional statements which contain ostensible/measurable variables operating within some testable theoretical framework. I think ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2129

Posted 01/23/09 - 06:54 AM:	#8
180 Proof wrote: What makes a question "philosophical" is its reflexive, meta-discursive, character AND that it cannot be answered by propositional statements. "Scientific" questions, on the other hand, are propositional statements which contain ostensible/measurable variables operating within some testable theoretical framework. I think ... Wow! I like it. I think. Let me think about it for a while.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 01/23/09 - 10:57 AM:	#9
Makarismos wrote: The philosopher, according to him, may be unable to even detect they were trapped. How convenient. I'm sympathetic to Wittgenstein's point, and I agree that certain solutions elude philosophers because they are determined to find a specific kind of answer or are caught up in particular ways of thinking about a question. But I think that too many of Wittgenstein's intellectual heirs use his philosophy as a means of prematurely bulldozing questions they would rather skip over when discussing their pet theories. Just because a particular instance of a question can be shown to be grammatically confused does not mean there is no substance to be had if we look below the surface. Makarismos wrote: Are philosophical problems mostly, sometimes, or always language puzzles which can and should be dissolved with closer inspection? If their are exceptions, what are they? Sometimes? Yes. Always? No. Mostly? It depends on how you cast your net. The most classic "exception" I can think of is the resolution (as opposed to dissolution) of global skepticism. Descartes, attempting to show that the self is indubitable, formulated his famous cogito argument. While the argument itself has been disputed, even the disputants concede that the underlying reasoning proves that something exists -- just not a Cartesian self. So there is something which is indubitable, even if it's not what Descartes thought it was. Makarismos wrote: I think of philosophy as a kind of "meta enterprise", which seeks to perhaps dissolve the confusion which arises in many disciplines. While I agree that philosophy does this (see philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of social science, etc.), I think it would be a mistake to limit the discipline to this. Philosophy also has its own subjects: logic, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology, for example. Makarismos wrote: Using logic, various "language games", and some real intellectual honesty, I believe it is possible to engage in philosophical questions successfully. I think language games are more of something to analyze than use. But having a handle on them can be helpful when engaging with various questions, yes. Makarismos wrote: If you ask Wittgenstein about this I am sure he would say that philosophy is not a body of lore but rather a activity. I second reincarnated's response. But to clarify: Yes, philosophy is an activity. So are science, dentistry, and ballet. But philosophy at least contributes to our body of knowledge in unique ways (that is, ways not duplicated by other disciplines). Makarismos wrote: Lets look at some examples:- Free will V determinism? Materialism/monism V dualism? Materialism/monism (reductionism?) v consciousness/qualia (folk psychology?) Is their something rather than nothing? I can think of more questions and examples of topics - but are any of them actually problems? Of course, the above selection is not representative. Instead, it is a list of the problems that currently seem the most intractable. It's a slightly misleading list, as well, since physicalism is not necessarily reductionist, reductionists don't necessarily reject the existence of consciousness, and those who take consciousness to be a real phenomenon do not necessarily believe in qualia. (Also, I'm guessing you meant "why is there something rather than nothing," not "is there something rather than nothing" -- the latter question being long resolved.) The interesting thing about your list, however, is that we do not currently have the resources to say whether or not these questions require or will even admit to Wittgensteinian dissolution. The Wittgenstein treatment, then, is really just one possible result of philosophical inquiry. We take the question, we refine it, and sometime while trying to answer it someone realizes that there is a fundamental confusion involved. Maybe this happens sooner, maybe it happens later. But the same can be said of philosophical questions amenable to the more ordinary treatment. All Wittgenstein has really done is remind us that the binaries sufficient for genuine questions do not exhaust the possibilities for those that merely appear answerable.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 01/23/09 - 11:00 AM:	#10
brainpharte wrote: I'd like to point out that many of the kinds of question that were once considered to be philosophy questions are now considered to be science questions. Sort of. There was always "natural philosophy" as a branch of philosophy, and that has split off into the independent discipline of science. Or, in other cases, the attempts to answer philosophical questions have devolved to the point of science (by which I mean, the philosophical research has gotten to the point where it needs some empirical data before it can resolve the question or continue the debate). Of course, there have come to be scientific questions that have nothing to do with philosophy (especially those considering technology or practical medicine), but the so-called "big questions" are still rooted in -- and intertwined with -- philosophy. brainpharte wrote: And perhaps theology has nearly been split off, too? According to some, such as Thomas Aquinas, they always were separate. brainpharte wrote: I get the impression that what I think of as mainstream Analytic philosophy pretty much ignores theology, and even ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics, perhaps? Is this really the case? I don't know what you think of as mainstream Analytic philosophy, so it's hard to answer your question. But as for actual mainstream analytic philosophy (or, perhaps, what I think of as mainstream analytic philosophy), the answer is no (with the exception of theology, though it depends on if and how you differentiate between theology and philosophy of religion). brainpharte wrote: Has philosophy pretty much evolved into a general method of analysis of the meaning of questions and statements rather than being a body of knowledge claims in the traditional branches? No. Some philosophers -- distressingly -- have accepted such a position, and some scientists smugly go along with it. But it's not the case. For one thing, many scientists have neither a handle on nor a concern for philosophical questions. Indeed, a physicist friend of mine is fond of saying, "I don't care what the rest of the story is as long as the math works out." (He's not being totally sincere, I think, as he's occasionally willing to discuss philosophy with me. So he cares a little -- just not qua scientist.) For another, there are questions and truths that are fundamentally answerable and discoverable by philosophy and not by other disciplines (ethics is perhaps the prime example here). But lest my acerbity towards science be taken too seriously -- in truth, I employ it primarily as a sort of antidote and counter to the more genuine instances of such feelings often aimed at philosophy -- I also believe there is a great deal to be learned by an exchange of ideas and interdisciplinary research between philosophers and scientists. The two disciplines must, I think, work in concert if we are to find out all that can be known about our world. I know, I know -- I'm an intellectual optimist.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.