Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ludwig Wittgenstein is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 28, 2004.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 1

Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 2

Contents 1 Criticism 1.1 Criticism, commentary, and where it ought to go 2 Name pronunciation again 3 "Whereof" translation 4 Sraffa 5 New Testament 6 Kant 7 James 8 "New Wittgenstein 9 Russel? 10 Zip It 11 Death 12 Added 13 header/bio summary 14 stylistic infelicities 15 Philosophical Investigations 16 FA without criticism 17 Culture and value? 18 Zettel 19 "The Simpsons" 20 On reversions 21 Section about his death removed 22 Suggestions 23 Religion 24 Homosexual? 25 "Jewcentric rambling"? 26 He is regarded as... 27 Preamble 28 intro 29 Kant

[edit] Criticism

I think this article needs a section containing criticism of Wittgenstein's views. PJ 09:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this needs to be linked with the page Wittgenstein's Poker. This guy Wittgenstein is so revered yet, as this book shows, he was in fact a terrible person and his philosophy was defeated way back in the 50's. He was a violent warmonger and he also shares that sickly look of Jesus. Harry Frankfurt's recent book On Bullshit discusses how Wittgenstein was insensative to the suffering of others. Wittgenstein and Heidegger were like the same guy -both very influential and both were unethical with philosophies opposed to realism. Bertrand Russell and Emmanuel Levinas offer similar, yet more original and more important philosophies-Teetotaler 2/16/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism, commentary, and where it ought to go

I agree—and it needs a lot more than that, besides. The section dealing with the Tractatus, for instance, makes repeated use of the phrase "some commentators" without any indication of who these commentators might be. Aside from the fact that this looks terribly unprofessional and verges on a weasely circumvention of Wikipedia's policy concerning original research, it is also very unhelpful to the reader. These phrases need to be replaced with internally-linked references to actual people. Furthermore, the stand-alone articles dealing with both of Wittgenstein's major works contain nothing at all dealing with the reception of these works. Considering that Wittgenstein is one of the most influential and controversial philosophers of the 20th century, this is really absurd.

Maybe the most immediate question, in view of what seems to be a mania around here (i.e., in the Wikipedia) for linked pages rather than single comprehensive articles, is whether the situation ought to be rectified on the main Wittgenstein page or on the pages dealing with each work. My inclination would be to keep all the work-related info on the main page, and simply re-direct all searches for specific works to that page. But since that seems not to be the way things are done around here, I guess we should pare-down the work-related entries on the main page and flesh-out the entries on the work-specific pages (to avoid not only redundancy but, much worse, contradiction) with well-sourced sections on the reception of Wittgenstein's ideas.

But before I start deleting the fruits of other people's (and my own) labor, let's get some more input on this. What do the rest of you think: Should we expand the main-page subsections on his works, with re-directs to that page for work-specific searches? Or should we expand the work-specific pages and shrink the entries dealing with works on the main page? Buck 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Verificationist reactions to Use "theory" and the Russell punch-in-the-stomach example suggested as starting point

[edit] Name pronunciation again

I corrected the IPA: <Ludwig> with a /t/ sound (cf. final devoicing) and <Wittgenstein> with a schwa. This is how it is usually pronounced in German (besides being German myself, I took courses on his philosophy, so I should know). However, he was Austrian, so I guess he himself might have pronounced his given name ['lu:tvi:k]. -- Anon.

Perhaps the common mistakes made by English speakers when pronouncing "Wittgenstein" is to (1) pronounce the "W" as in "Wind" when it ought to be pronounced more like the "V" in "Vintage", and (2) pronounce the "s" in "stein" as the "s" in "sign" when it ought to be pronounced more like the "sh" in "shine". PJ 10:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It does seem a little strange that Ludwig should be given as "'luːtvɪç", when Wittgenstein is described as an Austrian philosopher. "'luːtvɪç" sounds very German German. (Susume)

Wittgenstein generally presented himself as a German, not Austrian, thus it may be his own useage. I have no idea, as I've never seen his signature. Ernham 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how his signature would be relevant, unless he signed his name in IPA characters. garik 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Whereof" translation

I just noticed SlimVirgin asking about the famous final proposition of the Tractus in the edit history. The translation that sounds slightly funny to many, but to my ear mellifluous, is from Ogden's 1922 translation (I think the first, and most widely read, English translatiou). You can find it online at: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - Hypertext of the Ogden bilingual edition

Proposition 7: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You can translate it a number of ways, but that seems to be the well known one. "About which one cannot speak, one must be silent," etc. I might even like about which better personally because "Where" seems to imply a place. --Chadamir 16:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Nononono! "About that which one may not speak, one must shutup"! (or "If you don't know what you're talking about, keep your mouth shut.") Tomer ^TALK 06:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I was always taught to say: "Whereof one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence." And W. would have agreed with Tomer, except he'd have said: "If it's in principle impossible for you to know what you're talking about, keep your mouth shut." ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe: If you're gonna talk the talk, you better walk the walk! :-) (I still stand by the claim that Ogden translated it as above, whichever way is actually best). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps as that great philosopher my father would say "Better to be seen and not heard". Tomer ^TALK 10:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've always liked Frank P. Ramsey's version: What we can't say we can't say, and we can't whistle it either which is nice in it's oblique refernce to Wittgenstein's famous talent for whistling classical music. Stumps 10:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I have such a talent too! But my mom always characterized it as "annoying" rather than "famous"... Tomer ^TALK 10:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sraffa

I'm going to add the economist Sraffa to the list of influences because (i) Wittgenstein recognizes him as such in the PI and (ii) Wittgenstein corresponded with Sraffa in addition to regularly talking with him and Ramsey at Cambridge.

[edit] New Testament

There is a trail that leads from Schopenhauer to Wittgenstein's interest in the New Testament. In the fourth book of Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, he stated that Christ's denial of both egotism and willfullness indicated the way to salvation, deliverance, or release from suffering. Tolstoy enthusiastically embraced this outlook and wrote a book about the gospels. Wittgenstein read both Schopenhauer's and Tolstoy's opinions and he accepted their views. Lestrade 13:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Several writers have written about Schopenhauer's influence on Wittgenstein. I could never make sense of the first line of the Tractatus until I realized that it is almost equivalent to the first line of Schopenhauer's main work in which he wrote: The world is my representation. In Professor David Pear's book Wittgenstein, Chapter 1, he wrote that Wittgenstein "...took much of the framework of the Tractatus from Kant through Schopenhauer...." This is due to the fact that Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy is a relatively short, very readable explanation of Kant's critiques. But, for me, the most important and deep influence can be seen in Wittgenstein's ascetic attempt to withdraw from the world, his voluntary poverty as a result of giving away his inheritance, as well as his serious reading of the New Testament. These would be puzzling to someone who has not read Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, §68.Lestrade 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Kant

Wittgenstein learned Kant's philosophy by reading Schopenhauer's Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy. Schopenhauer's account was extremely readable and provided an epitome or résumé of Kant's thought. Lestrade 13:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

The mere aquantance of Witt. with Kant isn't enought to count him as an influence, or at least an influence signifigant enough to be mentioned. Moreover, if Wittgenstein got his Kant through Schopenhauer, then Schopenhauer should be counted as the inluence just as I should count Kripke as the influence on me were I to read Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. I found it surprising that someone would count Kant as an influence and I think a better defence is in order. JoelSCollier 03:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, two words: transcendental self. Ernham 14:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James

I believe William James should be listed as an influence, and perhaps something short written about Wittgenstein's reading of James -- from 1912 when he picks up James's Varieties of Religious Experience to its influence in his later ideas.

[edit] "New Wittgenstein

I started an article on the "New Wittgenstein" interpretation (this is not the best name, but it was the title of a recent book of essays by a bunch of the hotshots.) Please help expand and correct it. Many thanks, Sdedeo 15:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russel?

Why is Russel listed both in Influences and Influenced?

• Wittgenstein read, studied under, and was influenced by Russell's Principles of Mathematics. When Wittgenstein wrote the Tractatus, Russell himself admits, in the introduction to the Tractatus, that he is immensely impressed by the work, and subsequently Russell revised his work based on the Tractatus.

From Bertrand Russell's bio: Russell's influence on individual philosophers is singular, and perhaps most notably in the case of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was his student between 1911 and 1914. It should also be observed that Wittgenstein exerted considerable influence on Russell, especially in leading him to conclude, much to his regret, that mathematical truths were trivial, tautological truths. Evidence of Russell's influence on Wittgenstein can be seen throughout the Tractatus, which Russell was responsible for having published. Russell also helped to secure Wittgenstein's doctorate and a faculty position at Cambridge, along with several fellowships along the way. However, as previously stated, he came to disagree with Wittgenstein's later approach to philosophy, while Wittgenstein came to think of Russell as "superficial and glib," particularly in his popular writings.

Cheers! Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 14:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zip It

We can't speak about anything that we haven't experienced. Has anyone experienced the witnessing of Wittgy's sexual activities? Has Wittgy publicly described his sexual activities? If not, what is all this talk about his liaisons and preferences?

It seems to me that there is an inverse relationship between interest in Wittgy's mental ideas and his physical acts. The less that someone is interested in what he wrote, the more they are interested in what he did.Lestrade 14:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Whether there is an inverse relationship or not between one's interest in substance and one's interest in personal life is neither here nor there. The articles in Wikipedia always have a section on "Life" or "Life and Times." With Ludwig especially, the issue of his sexual orientation is significant because of the unusually strong response from his hysterical executors (Ms. Anscombe, Rush Rhees) when W. W. Bartley III published his book on Wittgenstein's philosophy, which contained a small section (including photographs) on W's sexual orientation which is, by now, well documented. Admittedly, this area should comprise a small part of the article, but it should certainly be mentioned. Do you object to the section on "Einstein" concerning his marriage? NYCSEAN

Since no one was in LW's bedroom to witness such activities, we must consider all judgments about his sexual orientation as mere hearsay and gossip. He never made any public declarations regarding this topic. There was a time, you know, when people had friends who were not necessarily sexual partners. LW had deep friendships with several people, male and female. Activist homosexuals today are simply trying to legitimize themselves by claiming famous people as belonging to their ranks.Lestrade 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Death

Cause of death was in error. Wittgenstein died of prostate cancer.

[edit] Added

Added trivia - supposed Asperger diagnose.

Please sign your posts by adding -~~~~ at the end. I removed the trivia section (copied below). It is fine to include this sort of information, but not without sources. Who speculated this? In what book? What are the reasons for this speculation? Add that sort of information and then copy it back to the main page, if you want.

It has been speculated that Wittgenstein had Asperger syndrome.

-Seth Mahoney 17:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK ! I´ll try. --jmak 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] header/bio summary

I think this article ties the life and work of LW too tightly, so the reader has to go through the detailed discussion of LW's philosophy to get a grip of LW's life. I think it would be a welcome improvement to edit the header and give the basics of W's birth and death, schooling and positions (Linz, Berlin, Cambridge), and then discuss LW's philosophy as much as you please in the article's body.

In the section "The Philosophical Investigations", it is said that Wittgenstein's "later philosophy" broke radically from the philosophy of the Tractatus in its view of the task of philosophy. This is a claim that I remember being made by published commentators that I read as an undergraduate student, 30 years ago, and I can't see it now any more than I could then. But this section makes the claim seem particularly hard to sustain; it is ironic that the particular example concerning The Good and The Beautiful are cited, as Wittgenstein refers specifically to this example in Tractatus 4.003, where he says "Most propositions and questions that have been written about philosophical matters are not false, but senseless.".

I'm reluctant to edit, as I haven't studied Wittgenstein (or any kind of western philosophy) for a very long time, and only turned up this page after stumbling on an online Tractatus earlier today. And anyway, I'd *really* appreciate an attempt by a proponent of the earlier/later school of Wittgenstein criticism to make clearer in which ways the later Wittgenstein repudiated (rather than revised) the philosophy of the Tractatus. MrDemeanour 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stylistic infelicities

Could something be done about the following sentence in the section 'Work'?

"Although many of Wittgenstein's notebooks, papers, and lectures have been published since his death, he published only one philosophical book in his lifetime, which means he's not a very good writer"

[edit] Philosophical Investigations

I'm a little uncomfortable with the recent revision of this section. Using the very terms 'sense' and 'nonsense' to illustrate how Wittgenstein thinks about sensible and nonsensical philosophical utterances seems needlessly opaque. I wasn't really that happy with the 'time'/'what is time' example that I preserved in the revision of this section that I did awhile ago. However, I think it's closer to being a helpful example than sense/nonsense, which seems designed to confound the uninitiated (rather than time or sense, why don't we use Wittgenstein's own damn examples in PI, like rule following, or reading? and by the way, where's the mention of private language here?). Maybe it's just supposed to be cute, not pedantic. But either way.

And maybe I'm just touchy about the say/show distinction because I tried employing it to solve the cogito in an undergrad paper (sigh), but I think it's misleading here. (1) LW never mentions it as such in the Investigations. Obviously you could apply it all over the place, but in PI, those applications would, I think, be parasitic on the primary notion of the illicit hypostatization of words (e.g. "mind"), which receives more immediate attention. (2) Quoting the Tractatus here doesn't really do justice to the radical difference between that book and the book in question. While there are obvious continuities, don't you think that, at least in a Wikipedia entry, it'd be disingenuous to downplay those (famous) differences? It makes PI look like nothing more than the Tractatus' bloated toady.--Figureground 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly support these comments. The saying/showing distinction is very much more a Tractatus thing than Philosophical Investigations - I do not think it is very helpful and it is certainly potentially misleading. The current text reads: "On Wittgenstein's account, language provides a way of coping with, what one might call, "everyday purposes," and it works well within that context. But when everyday language attempts to explain something beyond what it is able, problems arise." I think this is a poor interpretation. The point is not that language can cope with the mere everyday, but finds more sophisticated things difficult. Rather we use language well in certain situations and less well in others. The point of Wittgenstein's method is to help us become more sensitive to when our thinking becomes confused and our statements empty. We need to understand when the mechanism of language is doing something and when it is just spinning in the air without the connections that would give it meaning or import. I would be glad to see the text amended in this kind of direction but do not want to start an interpretation war. 4 July 2006 PGJ

I note these comments were made some time ago, but the section on the Investigations remains unchanged. I am willing to attempt a total rewrite of the section and will put the version here first for discussion. Davkal 12:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the following better captures the nature of the Investigations. The first two pargarphs have not been changed but the final three are completely different. Comments please.

Although the Tractatus is a major work, Wittgenstein is mostly studied today for the Philosophical Investigations (Philosophische Untersuchungen). In 1953, two years after Wittgenstein's death, the long-awaited book was published in two parts. Most of the 693 numbered paragraphs in Part I were ready for printing in 1946, but Wittgenstein withdrew the manuscript from the publisher. The shorter Part II was added by the editors, G.E.M. Anscombe and Rush Rhees. (Had Wittgenstein lived to complete the book himself, some of the remarks in Part II would likely have been incorporated into Part I, and the book would no longer have this bifurcated structure.)

It is notoriously difficult to find consensus among interpreters of Wittgenstein's work, and this is particularly true of the Investigations. Very briefly, Wittgenstein asks the reader to think of language and its uses as sets of language-games within which the parts of language function and have meaning in order to resolve the problems of philosophy. This view of language represents what many consider a break from the Wittgenstein in the Tractatus and, hence, meaning as representation. In the carrying out of such an investigation, one of the most radical characteristics of the "later" Wittgenstein comes to light. The "conventional" view of philosophy's "task", perhaps coming to a head in Bertrand Russell, is that the philosopher's task is to solve the seemingly intractable problems of philosophy using logical analysis (for example, the problem of "free will", the relationship between "mind" and "matter", what is "the good" or "the beautiful" and so on). However, Wittgenstein argues that these "problems" are, in fact, "bewitchments" that arise from the philosophers' misuse of language.

On Wittgenstein's account, language is woven into the fabric of life, and as part of that fabric it works unproblematically. Philosophical problems arise, on this account, when language is forced from its proper home and into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks have been deliberately removed. Removed for what appear to be sound philosophical reasons, but which are, for Wittgenstein, the very source of the problem. Wittgenstein describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice; where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language (the language of the Tractatus), and where all philosophical problems can be solved without the confusing and muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, just because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no actual work at all. There is much talk in the Investigations, then, of “idle wheels,” and language being “on holiday”, all of which are used to express this same idea of what is lacking in philosophical contexts. To resolve the problems encountered there, Wittgenstein argues, philosophers must “bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use.” That is, philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the “rough ground” of ordinary language in use.

Returning to the rough ground is, however, easier said than done. Philosophical problems having the character of depth, and running as deep as the forms of language and thought that have become habitual for the philosopher. Wittgenstein therefore speaks of “illusions” and “conjuring tricks” performed on our thinking by our forms of language and tries to break their spell by attending to differences between the superficially similar forms of expression that can lead to this type of confusion. For much of the Investigations, then, Wittgenstein tries to show how philosophers are led away from the ordinary world of language in use by misleading aspects of language itself. He does this by looking in turn at the development of various philosophical problems, from the general problem of language itself, through the notions of rules and rule following, and then on to some more specific problems in epistemology and philosophy of mind. Throughout these investigations, the style of writing is conversational with Wittgenstein in turn taking the role of the puzzled philosopher (on either or both sides of traditional philosophical debates), and that of the guide attempting to show the puzzled philosopher the way back: the “way out of the fly bottle.”

Much of the Investigations, then, consists of examples of how philosophical confusion is generated and how, by a close examination of the actual workings of everyday language, the first false steps towards philosophical puzzlement can be avoided. By avoiding these first false steps, philosophical problems themselves simply no longer arise and have therefore been dissolved rather than solved. As Wittgenstein puts it; "the clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear."

Davkal 14:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've amended the section in question with a few further alterations. I still think the section needs work and will continue to work on it myself. My main reasons for putting the section in now is that the original section was primarily concerned with: a) the "say/show" distinction, which I think plays little or no part in the Investigations; and b) a formal distinction between sense and nonsense which is much less explicit in the Investigations (if there at all) than it is in the Tractatus.Davkal 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA without criticism

This is clearly a beatifully done hagiography, folks. But Wittgenstsin was anything but a saint: in philosophy and in life. Unfortunately, the only critical comments I have access to concern his personal life. Apart from that, there is (a sort of) brief rebutall of Wittgenstein's view that "philosophical problems do not exist" in Popper's Conjectures and Refutatation. I will get a link to the well-sourced Italian article by Piergiorgio Oddifreddi concerning the extremely wacky personality and behavior of Herr Witt, first of all. This stuff should not be whitwashed. It adds dimension and realism to the mix to show that Witt was a strange fellow indeed.--Lacatosias 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link, but I will obviously have to translate the relevent sections. [1]

"Come persona, Wittgenstein fu piuttosto singolare: aveva terrore degli insetti, e preferiva asfissiare nell'antitarme di cui cospargeva la casa; lavava i piatti nella vasca da bagno, e puliva il pavimento cospargendolo di foglie di tè bagnate che poi scopava via; camminava in un modo tanto esagitato che in un soggiorno in Irlanda i vicini gli impedirono di attraversare i loro campi, perché spaventava le pecore; indossò l'uniforme dell'impero austro-ungarico (che ormai non esisteva più) per anni, dopo la fine della prima guerra mondiale; si fece operare di calcoli da sveglio perché non si fidava dei medici, e volle seguire l'operazione con un sistema di specchi; era contrario al voto alle donne perché quelle che aveva conosciuto erano tutte idiote (e quando incontro Elizabeth Anscombe, che non lo era, prese a chiamarla 'vecchio mio'); invitato al Circolo di Vienna per discutere di filosofia, vi leggeva invece poesie volgendo le spalle all'uditorio.

Come amico, era mortalmente esigente: di Russell perse la stima perché, scrivendo soltanto 'tascabili d'urto', non correva più il rischio di ammazzarsi facendo filosofia; con Moore si seccò molto quando questi, dopo un infarto, rifiutò di discutere troppo a lungo, perdendo così l'occasione di schiattare da filosofo, 'sul campo'. Naturalmente, finì col bisticciare con tutti (Russell, Moore, Ramsey, Keynes, Waismann, Carnap, Popper) prima o poi, e col troncare i rapporti per periodi più o meno lunghi. D'altra parte, la sua compagnia fu considerata pestilenziale, da doversi evitare per periodi troppo prolungati (soprattutto nella fase in cui pretese di confessare i suoi 'peccati'4 come espiazione: sua e, probabilmente, altrui).

In amore, non era comune. Non certo perché omosessuale,5 quanto perché amò amare all'insaputa dell'amato (ad esempio, David Pinsent, a cui dedicò il Tractatus), e disgiungere per quanto possibile il sentimento dal sesso (ad esempio, proponendo un matrimonio in bianco a Marguerite Respinger).6

Anche come insegnante, Wittgenstein non fu (fortunatamente) comune. Da maestro elementare distribuì botte (non simboliche) ai maschi e tirate di capelli alle femmine, arrivò a far perdere conoscenza ad un bimbo malato che morì tre anni dopo di leucemia, e finì sotto processo (dimettendosi subito dopo) per aver fatto sanguinare ripetutamente una bambina. Da professore universitario si vantava di non aver studiato le opere di altri filosofi (sostenendo che lo facevano soltanto gli accademici, cioè i filosofi fasulli), e si rifiutò di far lezione a troppi studenti (una trentina), preferendo dettare a pochi di essi degli appunti che gli altri potevano leggere a casa (e che divennero il Libro blu). Sconsigliò sempre sia la filosofia come professione che la carriera accademica, sostenendo (certo a ragione) che non è possibile essere allo stesso tempo persone serie ed oneste e professori universitari.7

La filosofia era per lui una sofferenza: credeva che non fosse possibile pensare decentemente se non si vuole farsi del male, e che pensare fosse come nuotare (nel senso che si ha tendenza a stare in superficie, mentre andare in profondità richiede uno sforzo). Si lamentava che il suo pensiero fosse sistematicamente frainteso (oltre che plagiato), senza abbandonare però la pretesa di esporlo soltanto in forma poetica (criterio in base al quale la sua opera andrebbe forse giudicata8)."

As a person, Wittgenstien was rather unusual: he was terrified of insects and preferred to asfixiate himself in the insecticide (?) with which he inundated his home; he washed his dishes in the bathtub, and cleaned the floors by covering them with tea leaves which he then broomed away; he walked in such an excited or agitated manner that during a vacation in Ireland his neighbors prevented him from passing across through their fields, because he frightened away the sheep; he continued to wear the Austro-Hungarian militray uniform (which no longer existed) for years after the end of WWI; he had himself operated on without anesthetic because of his fear of doctors and he insisted on following the entire procedure with a system of mirrors; he opposed the vote for women because all of those whom he had known were idiots (and when he met Elizabeth Anscomb, who was not, he took to calling her "my old chap"); when he was invited to participate in the mettings of the Vienna Circle in order to discuss philosophy, he would sit and read poetry instead, with his back turned to his audience.

As a friend, he was mortally demanding: he lost his esteem for Russell because, by writing popular paperbacks, he no longer ran the risk of killing himnself doing philosophy; he got extrenyl bored with Moore when the latter, after having a heart attack, refused to debate at length with him, losing in this way the opportunity to finish himnself off philosophizing "on the field". Naturally, he ended up fighting with everyone (Russell, Moore, Ramsey, Keynes, Waismann, Carnap, Popper) sooner or later, and struncating his relations for more or less lengthy periods of time. On the othet hand, his freindship was considered pestilential, to be avoided at all costs for long periods of time (above all, during the phase in which he claimed the need to confess his "sins" as expiation: his, and, probably, those of others).

(to be continued)....--Lacatosias 10:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a collection of stories which are mainly also found in Monk or Edmonds and Eidinow, and sometimes confused - sweeping with tea leaves was not an uncommon cleaning method at the time (several references here, for example), Oddifreddi is confusing the reasons for falling out with Russell and Moore (and possibly also Sraffa), Wittgenstein never had any sort of friendship with Popper, and one of the remarkable things about his personality was that despite the fact that he was undoubtedly eccentric and hugely demanding, so many people valued his friendship and kept it up despite the demands. Wittgenstein tended to be the one to break relationships, often (as was the case with Sraffa) when people wanted to remain friends but not on his terms. WP:V is key here - if Oddifreddi has a source for any of this, that's fine, but what you've translated doesn't look to me to be very accurate. --ajn (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot further verify the claims, that's why I'm posting this here. Otherwise, I would have just edited the article directly. In any case, the sources cited by Oddifreddi as the basis for his biographical sketch are listed below. I don't have access to these books and I'm not in the best of health at the moment, so I'll leave it up to others to do the research if they would like. The article, however, strikes me as thoroughly hagiographical. Just because some of these charges may be off-base (though you actually haven't idenitifed one that is, but just said that they are corroborated in other biographical accounts, oddly enough), doesn't mean they all are. His opposition to the vote for women and his calling Anscombe "old chap", for example, are quite interesting and quite revealing if true.

- Bertrand Russell, Autobiografia, volume II, Longanesi, 1969.
- David Pinsent, Vacanze con Wittgenstein, Boringhieri, 1992.
- Paul Engelmann, Lettere di Ludwig Wittgenstein con ricordi, La Nuova Italia, 1970.
- Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bompiani, 1964.
- Rush Rhees (curatore), Recollections of Wittgenstein, Oxford University Press, 1984.

A livello macroscopico, due biografie forniscono, rispettivamente, un'idea generale ed una visione dettagliata:

- Georg von Wright, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Schizzo biografico, nel libro di Malcolm citato.
- Ray Monk, Wittgenstein, Bompiani, 1991.

Ultimatalely, I'm much more interested that there be a criticism of ideas section, because NO philosopher should be treated as off-limits, not even Wittegentsein who was one of the greatest of the century (better, espesically not Wittgenstin who was one of the greatest of the last century).--Lacatosias 12:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

--Lacatosias 12:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have access to several of these. You seem confused about the "charges" - are you saying the article needs to stress that Wittgenstein walked in a funny way and frightened sheep? Or that there needs to be some criticism of his philosophical ideas? If the latter, I'd agree (there also needs to be some more exposition of the different interpretations of his writings). But that's not what Oddifreddi provides as far as I can tell from the two paragraphs you've translated - he seems to have gathered up trivial information about personal eccentricities from a variety of mainly secondary sources. Wittgenstein produced strong reactions either way in people, and many of these stories of eccentricity (from admirers or enemies) need to be taken with a pinch of salt. The fact that the article isn't stuffed with trivial anecdotes about what a loony Wittgenstein was, doesn't make it a hagiography. I don't see anything in the article to suggest he was a saint. --ajn (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not interested in "stuffing" the article "trivialities" and I'm not confusing anything. Basically, 1)I would think that the biography could be extended and improved a bit with a few salient facts. Not to demonstrate how loony Wittgentsin was, but how human he was. It's rather boring. See, for example, the biography of John von Neumann. 2) A criticism section might perhaps be added along the lines of the article on Karl Popper, this one I wrote for Jerry Fodor or this one I wrote on Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I just wanted to bring this to people's attention, not argue about it for several hours. Good day. --Lacatosias 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Imho the first bombastic sentence should be toned down: Wittgenstein did not contribute anything to the philosophy of mathematics and very little to(the foundation of) logic. When his Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics appeared posthumously, they were met critically, at most with condescence, by the professional community (see Benacerraf and Putnam). There is a consensus that somehow Wittgenstein had missed the point of Gödel's work. The other possible contribution to mathematical philosophy should be the Tractatus but it does not contain anything specific, apart some criticism of Russell's logicism. The use of 'truth tables' is credited also to Emile Post, so it is difficult to see what would amount to 'ground-breaking work' in logic or philosophy of mathematics. It could be asserted perhaps that Wittgenstein has contributed to these topics indirectly. It would be easy to edit: "...contributed ground-breaking work to contemporary philosophy, primarily on the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind".85.187.217.182 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, since you mention Putnam, he did come to feel much more positively about Wittgenstein's understanding of Gödel's work than you might be aware; see, for example, [2]. I do think you are correct about the mainstream mathematics community's rejection of Wittgenstein's views on the philosophy of mathematics and foundations of logic, but this does not deny their influence, or their importance in Wittgenstein's thought. -Chinju 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I had in mind the book Philosophy of Mathematics (selected readings) ed. Benacerraf and Putnam.

Anyaway, my point was that Lacatosias is not exaggerating when he talks about hagiography; the first sentence sets the tone. 85.187.217.182 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture and value?

I read Culture and Value recently (in part due to the description on this page) and it seemed certainly as though Wittgenstein was influenced by Kierkegaard, but he never goes so far as to "critique" his work. I mean, he only had a few lines in which he even referred to Kierkegaard, compared to 3+ times that amount discussing the work of Shakespeare.... Does anyone with knowledge in this area agree with this?

I agree. There is no evidence that Wittgenstein's engagement with Kierkegaard consisted of anything more than seeing in Kierkegaard's work Wittgenstein's own religio-philosophical views - and, for that reason, regarding Kierkegaard's work as 'profound'. Wittgenstein had a tendency to read other authors in this way. Kierkegaard's thought does not, I think, positively shape Wittgenstein's thought as does the work of Schopenhauer, Weininger, Spengler, Tolstoy or even Dostoevsky. Best, Maxim662 17:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

When I read Culture and Value, he does discuss many aspects of religion that Kierkegaard brings up, especially in K's later works. His discussions on the Gospels, Scriptures, and Christ's Resurrection are all highly reminscient of things K discusses in Christian Discourses and Without Authority. And I agree with Max to an extent, but there are other scholars that have made an interesting account of the K and W relationship: [3] Poor Yorick 04:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

as i recall, that book is a collection put together by an editor, not composed by W himself. As such, if you want to see if he deals with K, you should go look at the whole of the notebooks to see where those selections were pulled from, and perhaps you'll find more relevant material. --Buridan 23:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zettel

Is there any reason why Zettel has been excluded from the list of works by Wittgenstein. I know that the book consists of Wittgenstein's clippings from his own manuscripts, but they were compiled by serious Wittgensteinian scholars and are widely regarded as sheding light on LW's thought and even providing some important insights into his views on philosophy of action which are not really dealt with elsewhere.Davkal 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Simpsons"

In a 1997 "Simpsons" episode titled "The Springfield Files," Homer lies to FBI agents Mulder and Scully, telling them "The evening began at the gentlemen's club, where we were discussing Wittgenstein over a game of backgammon."

[edit] On reversions

Reversions ought not be made of correct edits back to previous versions that are demonstrably false. Since Austria did not exist as an independent state in July 1939, the 1.7 tonnes of Wittgenstein gold were NOT "2% of the Austrian gold reserves". They were, however, comparable in value/cost to that of the British Spitfire fleet in 1939, after four years of British rearmament. The original placed the 1.7 tonne transfer into historical context, whereas the reversion does not and simply perpetuates the falsehood. Following the declaration of war on September 3rd, this sort of transfer was a capital offence (Aiding and abetting the enemy.) Its historical significance ought not to be edited away without some sort of explanation for the reversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.122.204 (talk • contribs) .

The rationale is that Wikipedia is not a place for original research (see WP:NOR), and Kimberley Cornish's nutty theories should not be given undue weight in the article (see WP:NPOV). The article is unbalanced as it is. --ajn (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely the only thing that matters is if the edit is true or false. Austria had no gold reserves, contrary to what the uncorrected text asserted and this was duly corrected. After reversion, the unsuspecting reader seeking information from Wikipedia will learn falsely that the 1.7 tonnes of gold transferred to the Nazis was 2% of the Austrian gold reserves. Something wrong, here, surely. Nothing whatever to do with "Cornish's nutty theories" and no original research required; just plain vanilla knowledge of national political boundaries in 1939 Europe. I agree with you, however, that the article is unbalanced.

Addendum: Look, if you're not happy with the Spitfire comparison - which is actually correct, if you do the multiplication I provided, and which I think places what the Wittgensteins did in context - why don't we just agree to give the pounds sterling equivalent in 1939 of 1.7 tonnes of gold? (Or 2006, for that matter, or some other objective measure of its value - you choose whichever you think is reasonable.) I don't really care HOW it is corrected, so long as it IS corrected and we don't have a reference to a non-existent independent Austria. "Wittgenstein's Poker" was simply wrong on this, though I suspect the authors might have been thinking about pre-Anschluss Austria. However that might be, there is no excuse for perpetuating their error in Wikipedia.

After some weeks, I've corrected the sentence in question (the one that mentions the 1.7 tonnes of gold) and changed "Paul Wittgenstein" to "the Wittgenstein family", since Paul was not solely responsible for the transfer. Given the obvious reluctance of other editors to have the figure of US$50 million mentioned, I have not added it to the article. For all that, it remains true that the Wittgenstein assets donated to the Nazis a week or so before the British declaration of war, was about equivalent in value to the Spitfire fleet when Great Britain commenced hostilities.

[edit] Section about his death removed

Sorry! I managed to forget to add an edit history when I removed the following:

There is, however, an alternative version of Wittgenstein's demise. An increasing number of secondary sources  
highlight Wittgenstein's daily routine of visiting a tree at a nearby college, of which he was deeply fond. They then
go on to claim that Wittgenstein died the day after this particular tree was cut down. Although this is (if it is 
true) probably a coincidence, it adds an extra element of unique brilliance at the man's life. Regarding the truth of
the claim, the tree does indeed appear to have been chopped down on the correct day (one of the authors supporting  
this story claims to have actually met the man who did it). However, the jury is still indefinitely out.

I find it all a bit odd. First, it doesn't tell us which secondary sources - or where they draw their information from. Second, it's not clear precisely what the relationship is supposed to be between the tree getting chopped down and Wittgenstein's death: did it just make him want to give up? And how is this an extra element in his unique brilliance? Why is it especially brilliant to die the day after your favourite tree does? Maybe there's something I'm missing... garik 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

(1) Might it be useful to "update" Wittgenstein's contributions to various academic and philosophical inquiries? It seems that Wittgenstein's use of language games and place of language in experience has experienced something of a revival among some postmodern academics.

In particular, his own transition from "representational" to "lived" semiotic is in itself interesting as a presage of the movement from a "representational" to a "community" derivation of language / meaning.

I'm no Wittgenstein expert (just stumbled upon this interesting, if frustrating, discussion) and any credentials I might have had to the "philosopher's club" have probably long expired, but a part of my doctoral work did float in and around meaning, words, classification and the uses we make of them--via semiotics. Thus I am eminently unqualified to write such a piece, though I can see a hole on the bookshelf where something like it might just fit.

That is, philosophy did not end with Adorno, or even with Habermas. Some young buck out there, can you tell whether this connection (Wittgenstein's work on language and postmodern approaches to community-as-language) has developed at all in contemporary (21st century) philosophical work?

Might be nice to see something pragmatic as well as historic. . .(of course they are not mutually exclusive. . .)

(2) On the issue of Wittgenstein's alleged personal quirks:

Given the absolute delight with which students of philosophy embrace all that is eccentric in the lives of the authors with whose works they are cursed to try and read (see Philosopher's Song. . .any campus)

and

the somewhat unsettling popular idea that the most brilliant men (almost always men) are proportionately looney (perhaps explaining the less-brilliant lives of mostly normal people?) as well as

the difficulty of actually nailing down with precise sources most of what happened in Europe during either of the "world wars," but in particular the second--there was an awful lot of bombing and burning by both sides

it might be difficult to come up with primary source material that would either confirm or deny even positions held forth in academic lectures but unpublished, let alone personal eccentricities (after all, if the people writing about these eccentricities were themselves brilliant, their own opinions of normalcy should be correspondingly suspect, see the "it takes one to know one" argument)

So

perhaps we should cobble together a "tribute" page to which all of the strange and probably unprovable and just as probably unimportant traits, stunts, personal traits, learned tricks and inept relationships of all such "brilliant but eccentric" wiki subjects can point?

Thus the eccentricities (which, if not so important, are entertaining enough that folks will be motivated to search dilligently for evidence enough to warrant a smirk) can be acknowledged with a neat and proper cite through a proper point to another wikipedia page

but

the "eccentricities" page itself would be self-evidently immune from the precision of source usually required of biographies of thought, (by the way, why is it we assume that someone's date and place of birth is important to the formation of their intellectual ideas?)

and would be a riotous read. (potentially Wiki's most commonly cited article)

This might satisfy both the "biography of ideas" and the "biography of real peoples behind the ideas" folks by allowing the hint or shadow of perhaps something utterly crazy to fall across the screen without an actual commission of the crime of citing one wack-o's account of another wack-o (non-traditional spelling intentional).

Paradoxically, this page might already exist, and merely lacks more "slept with sheep but only within a platonic framework" entries in order to accumulate enough word-weight to produce a big enough ripple when it is dropped into the swimming pool of ideas. After all, it wouldn't probably be listed where any boring (and thus non-brilliant) person might expect. . .

Roy 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Why are Wittgenstein's religious views clustered together in the WWI section? They clearly progressed over time, so I think it would be sensible to have a solely religion section/subsection. The Walrus 18:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual?

I notice that Lestrade keeps removing Wittgenstein from the Homosexuals category. I'd always understood him to be homosexual - everything I've read about him describes him as such (although the details of how physical his relationships were seem unclear. Moreover, this article suggests he was homosexual. What do other people think? Is this question really more controversial than I'd believed? garik 09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a citation about his sexual orientation that recounts eyewitnessed events or refers to documented statements by Wittgenstein himself. It is not enough to make such a serious attribution on the grounds that you "always understood" it, that "everything I've read" makes that description, or that the "article suggests" it. Remember, it is a common tactic for homosexuals, in trying to make their behavior seem acceptable, to attribute it to famous people. When readers simply believe what has been casually asserted, that tactic is effective.Lestrade 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The fact that 'I'd always understood him to be homosexual' etc was not intended as a reason to have him included in that category here. I said that here merely to indicate my surprise that it is more controversial than I had previously supposed. My point about this article is a little different: the article states that most of his romantic atachments were to young men. Either we let that claim stay and add the homosexuals category to the end of the article, or we remove both. In allowing the article to claim that Wittgenstein was homosexual (or bisexual), but denying that he was for the purposes of excluding him from a category, seems highly inconsistent.

I would also take great issue with the following:

Remember, it is a common tactic for homosexuals, in trying to make their behavior seem acceptable, to attribute it 
to famous people. When readers simply believe what has been casually asserted, that tactic is effective.

First, there is the dubious generalisation of 'it is a common tactic of homosexuals'. Can you provide me with documented statements and eyewitness accounts of this? Second, the point seems somewhat irrelevant in any case. If it were proved that certain classical children's authors were paedophiles or child abusers, as has been claimed, this would go no way towards justifying paedophilia or child abuse. I also fail to see why homosexuals would need to appeal to famous figures 'in order to make their behaviour seem acceptable'. Are you implying that homosexual behaviour is unacceptable? On what possible grounds? garik 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LW had a heterosexual attraction to Marguerite Respinger. That is a fact. As far as the above-mentioned tactic is concerned, I think that you would have to be blind not to see it. Other such tactics are the ever-increasing use of all available communication media to depict homosexuality as being common and acceptable, especially in order to influence young people and therefore future generations. The Wikipedia article on Wittgenstein should not include rumor or insinuation, especially since there is active intention to include such material, as can easily be seen in many other articles.Lestrade 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well maybe 'bisexual' would be a better category then - I certainly agree that people are too often taken for homosexual who would be far better described as bisexual. I admit that quite a lot of people I have met often seem intrigued by the question of whether or not acquaintance x or celebrity y is gay (again, the concept of bisexual seems very often to be ignored). However, the vast majority of the people I have known take an interest in this question were, as far as I could tell, heterosexual. You sound to me very much as if you suspect some sort of media conspiracy. What kind of influence do you suppose such conspirators hope to have on young people? To convince them that homosexual behaviour is acceptable? That would seem to me to be a laudable aim. I don't know if you understand the word 'insinuation' in the same way I do - to me it implies that you suggest or claim something negative about the target. I do not see, however, how calling Wittgenstein homosexual would be either positive or negative. As for it being rumour: well, fair enough. I don't know quite enough about him to know whether the evidence is any stronger than unsubstantiated rumour, but I am unconvinced that it is not. garik 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add, incidentally, that his sexual attraction to Marguerite Respinger seems as uncertain as his attraction to men. The fact that he was romantically involved with her does not mean that he was sexually attracted to her. For my part, I suppose he probably was attracted to her, but one must be careful of merely assuming such things. garik 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer here is fairly straightforward. The issue of Wittgenstein's sexuality is discusssed in the article. If the conclusion of that discussion is that there is fairly broad agreement that LW was homosexual, or bisexual, then he can obviously be included in the appropriate category. If, in the article, no firm conclusion about LW's sexuality can be drawn because, say, it is a point of some serious debate among biographers, then he cannot go into either of those categories. That is, the categories cannot go beyond what is stated in the article.Davkal 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. How conclusive do you think the article is? garik 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear, for example, from the article, "What has become clear, in any case, is that Wittgenstein had [...] long-term relationships during his years in Cambridge with Francis Skinner and possibly Ben Richards." The debate mainly concerning how active LW was. The only stumbling block being whether he was homo(or bi)sexual, and I think to put both categories in, if you can be both, would seem to be making an extraordinary deal of something that shouldn't really be a deal at all. My thoughts are that according to the article we could, without much controversy, list him as homosexual. Davkal 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. garik 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, there are no eyewitnesses or documents regarding his alleged role in various bank robberies, child molestations, and serial murders. Can I include those activities in the article, also? But, possibly, there are not enough people who want to make those attributes seem benign.Lestrade 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, but Lestrade, the article makes it plain he had homosexual relationships but says nothing about any of the other things you suggest. That's why, it seems to me, it is acceptable to categorise him as homosexual but not as, say, a bank robber.Davkal 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Davkal: "…the article makes it plain…" But who is to say that the article has any basis for making it plain?

User:garik: "… a laudable aim…" would you also laud a few million more deaths due to AIDS? You see, that virus is very efficient in entering the blood stream through intestinal tissue that has been damaged by friction.Lestrade 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, I think your points are now becoming somewhat hysterical and a bit nasty. If you have an issue with the claims in the article about Wittgenstein's sexuality then challenge the sources in an appropriate manner - i.e. by finding other sources which support your contention. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then I suggest you take that elsewhere. I'm not going to report your last comment but I think you should reexamine it and see if it's something you really want be associated with.Davkal 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

would you also laud a few million more deaths due to AIDS? You see, that virus is very efficient 
in entering the blood stream through intestinal tissue that has been damaged by friction.

I hope it is not necessary to explain the problems with this argument. I agree with Davkal and hope that you succeed in calming down.

With regard to Stemonitis's edit, I agree that LGBT is an excellent and preferable alternative to homosexual as a category. garik 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LGBT category,although it seems to have gone already. Davkal 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that my argument is not taken seriously. I claim that the assertion in the article that LW is a homosexual is groundless and has not been proven. I am told that if I disagree with the claims in the article, I must challenge the sources by finding opposing sources. But this contradicts the dialectical rule affirmanti incumbit probatio. This means that it is incumbent on the person who makes an affirmative, positive assertion to provide proof. Such proof must be provided by whoever says what LW is, not what he isn't. Also, I protest that User:garik's statement is considered acceptable , but my warning of the consequential health hazard is something that you might "report." User:garik says that convincing young people that homosexuality is acceptable is a laudable aim. This is said in the midst of a rampant AIDS epidemic. But, you would "report" my warning, not User:garik's irresponsible and fatal assertion. Such an attitude betrays a bias and intention that I cannot hope to overcome by rational means.Lestrade 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

1. Sources are provided in the article to back up the claim of LW's homsexuality. If you don't like them, or don't accept them, but all/most other editors do then it is now incumbent on you to find something that casts doubt on them. You simply saying "I don't think it's true" doesn't wash. 2. Let us report you and Garik and see who the admin think is making offensive comments. I know who my money's on. In any event, I merely asked you if you wished to reexamine your view and made no statements about the suitability of Garik's claim at all - even if he was in the wrong, two wrongs wouldn't make a right. Davkal 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lestrade, I imagined it would be unncessary to point out the problems in your AIDS-based argument; apparently I was mistaken. I have to admit to being somewhat disturbed by your grasp of the facts. First, you seem not to recognise that homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing. The latter is very common among heterosexual couples; conversely, many homosexual couples do not indulge in it. Second, do I really need to remind you that AIDS is far from restricted to gay people? If we must be graphic: the human immunodeficiency virus is very efficient at entering human beings in the exchange of most bodily fluids (saliva, apparently, is something of an exception). This includes vaginal intercourse. Need I also remind you that the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are not gay men? It is not homosexuality that has spread AIDS so wide; it is ignorance. And that is something I hope future generations will learn to find unacceptable. garik 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, let's try to bring this discussion back to Wittgenstein. Sorry everyone for going off topic. garik 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding LW, he never admitted to being homosexual. Not one of his friends or acquaintances ever publicly stated that he engaged in any such acts. In plain English, such an attribution has never been proven at all. Regarding your naïve ideas about the transmission of AIDS, it is only transmitted by direct injection into the bloodstream. This rules out vaginal intercourse. That is why it can be transmitted by tatooing or by the use of hypodermic needles. Your assertions are dangerous and irresponsible.Lestrade 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

While I agree in principle that claims for which one can't find written sources should be excluded from the encyclopedia since they involve original research (and I'm not saying anything about the present debate, since I don't know enough about what written sources are available), the fact remains that Wittgenstein was homosexual whether or not that belongs in an encyclopedia. I knew a man, a notable scholar of good reputation, who knew G.E.M. Anscombe and Peter Geach personally, both of whom were good personal friends of Wittgenstein, and he had no doubt whatsoever that Wittgenstein was gay; he even stated it in an introduction to a translation of one of Wittgenstein's books. I believe him, whatever his sources were. But you seem to be in need of an education about Aids; it most certainly can be transmitted through vaginal intercourse. Read up on it. Or talk to a doctor. --D. Webb 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lestrade, you're right. But you forgot to add that only people with the poof gene can catch it. That is, a woman can get it through vaginal intercourse but only if; A) she shags a man with the poof gene; b) she herself has the female version of the poof gene; and c) both are psychologically under 25. Please correct me if I'm wrong here Lestrade, because as everbody knows the poof gene wears off by about this age and poofs stop being poofs (even women poofs although I think it's about 23 years for them)and become normal people. Except for those poofs that stay poofs by remaining under 25 years old (23 for women) for their whole lives. [4] Davkal 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User: D. Webb's "proof" is based on hearsay and rumor. User:Davkal has made a poor attempt at gallows humor. It looks as though everyone but me is content to include unproven accusations about LW in the article. I guess that is the way of Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that young people, who usually believe what they read, will be influenced by such misinformation.Lestrade 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I wasn't offering this as a proof. If I were, then I would simply add it to the article. You can get off your high horse too, pretending to be the only one who cares about verification. Did you not read what I wrote? I do agree that information that cannot be found in written documents should be excluded. However, I am not absolutely certain that no written documents exist indicating W's homosexuality. Others, more knowledgable than I, will have to dig that up. What you took as a proposed proof was merely my own personal reason for believing the claim. Hearsay and rumour of unknown origin, while inadmissible as evidence here, need not necessarily be incorrect. It isn't even clear to me that this information is ultemately based solely on hearsay. Who knows whether Anscombe, W's iterary executive, had access to written documents proving the claim? And I won't insist that the written documents come from W's own pen. I seem to recall Bertrand Russell confirming it too somewhere, but can't remember where. Of course you will say that since Russell - if he did say that W. was homosexual, isn't reliable since he would be basing it on a conversation he personally had with Wittgenstein. But if W's mentor, friend, and benefactor claims to have been told by W. that he was gay, then that isn't just any other rumour. And if other, equally reliable sources, agree, then I would say we had a reason to believe that W. was homosexual. I also seem to remember Ray Monk's excellent biography of Wittgenstein discussing his homosexuality, but it has been a long time since I read it and so I no longer recall where he said this nor did I check his sources. But the book got outstanding reviews and is thought to be quite reliable. Perhaps someone could find out whether Monk does include discussion of W's homosexuality and what is sources were? --D. Webb 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In Monk's book, p. 376, LW is supposed to have written about Francis Skinner, that he "… Lay with him two or three times (Zwei oder dreimal mit ihm gelegen)." This is cited as coming from Manuscript 118 of LW's papers. Monk calls these remarks "coded," as though they have an unusual or idiosyncratic meaning.Lestrade 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, that's at least an indication. Now, taken together with reports from his friends, it would seem to indicate that the reports of his homosexuality are not merely hearsay. --D. Webb 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not give examples of the evidence on which some people conclude Wittgenstein to be gay, drop a few sources for those who want to pursue the issue further, and say no more? I'm personally satisfied in believing Wittgenstein to be gay, I wouldn't want to whomp some unsuspecting reader with my side of the debate as though it were a generally accepted fact, which from this debate we can conclude it is certainly not. There is the further issue - though I suppose its almost useless to point it out - that perhaps we ought to respect Wittgenstein's privacy and remain silent on this question. JoelSCollier 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Jewcentric rambling"?

It's not clear to me that information about the religious background of Wittgenstein's family (as removed in this edit by Ernham) has no place in the article. I'm not Jewish myself (lest I be accused of "Jewcentricity") but I think that, in the context of late nineteenth/early twentieth century Austria, a family's Jewish background (or religious background generally) is interesting and relevant. garik 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that is NOT the "religious background" of his family. It's all either made up or has no place the article. Ernham 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see - well, if it's made up, then of course it has no place in the article. The edit summary didn't make clear that the veracity of the claim was at issue. If it were an accurate description of his family background though, I'd see no reason to remove it. garik 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A combination of veracity and irrelvance, actually, not exclusively one or the other. I'll probably add back a more concise version.Ernham 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. garik 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't sound too good to me. The fact that Wittgenstein's family was originally Jewish and converted to Christianity is neither made up nor irrelevant. Rather, it's a well-known and totally uncontroversial fact, which can be found in any book about his life. Furthermore, considering that so much of his later thought is concerned with the potential mishaps involved in attempts at communication between conflicting or opposed forms of life, it seems entirely relevant to a broader understanding of the genesis of his thought--to say nothing about the very large role played by questions of religion throughout his life, a fact which mitigates any objections to the effect that his childhood household was generally secular in inclination. His blood type was certainly irrelevant to an understanding of his thought, as was his shoe size and his taste in food. But how is the religious background of a major philosopher's family irrelevant? This is a rather slanted and arbitrary edit, and it's really asking to be reverted. Buck Mulligan 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. What sounded good to me was putting back a concise version. I haven't read enough to know whether the details are accurate or not, but if they are, they most certainly merit reinstatement, more concisely or not. If you have the sources to back it up (that should put off future removers) then I'd replace the information. garik 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree, Garik. I'll try to fix it up with something both relevant and properly sourced by tomorrow night. Buck Mulligan 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernham's use of the offensive language "Jewcentric rambling" to purpotedly justify the removal of highly relevant biographical material suggests a less than neutral POV; indeed, characterizing such highly relevant biographical details, in such terms, borders on, if not indeed constituting manifestly clear, antisemitism. Accordingly, WP:NPOV and WP:Vandalism apply here. Do I need to remind anyone here that after the Anschluss took place, Wittgenstein's family was marked for death for being Jewish?--Lance ^talk 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so scary. "marked for death"? That's absurdly laughable and merely demonstrates your complete ignorance regarding him and his family. His family was never "marked for death", and they had absolutely no fear of the Nazis. Maybe you should wash some of the ignorance off yourself and find out why, hmmm?Ernham 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration, Lance. I was planning to rewrite the thing with sources and all the rest, but the Christmas season has gotten the better of me for the time being. I also agree that Ernham's comments are, to say the least, rather odd if not downright offensive. Happy holidays to everybody. Buck Mulligan 02:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also the passages in "Culture and Value" where he claimed (probably correctly) to be "the greatest of Jewish thinkers" and in "Recollections of Wittgenstein" where Drury reports him as saying that his thought was "100% Hebraic". Clearly his Jewishness mattered to Wittgenstein, since he felt driven to "confess" it to his Cambridge colleagues. Anyone denying its relevance ought to read a few more books.

Sorry to disturb your little day dream, but Wittgenstein did not at all EVER consider himself Jewish, or ever claim anything about "100% hebriac". He never practiced as a Jew, his immediate family never identified at all as Jews; neither of his parents ever practiced Judaism. By Talmudic Jewish rules themselves, he cannot be considered Jewish, as his mother was not Jewish.Ernham 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from p.5 of Monk's biography: "Wittgenstein's adult aunt asked her brother Louis if the rumous she had heard about their Jewish origins were true. "Pur sang, Milly", he replied, "pur sang". "The family, that is, regarded itself as "pure-bloodedly" Jewish. The Stonborough family, into which Wittgenstein's sister married, recently filed a claim against the Austrian government for assets seized from Wittgenstein's sister Margarete (as a Jew), following the Anschluss. That is, if the suit has any merit, then Wittgenstein's sister was Jewish, ergo he was too. Wittgenstein "confessed" to his Jewishness at Cambridge (Monk, Ray. Wittgenstein:The Duty of Genius, Jonathan Cape, London 1990, p.369.). He claimed that his thought was "100 percent Hebraic" ("my thoughts are one hundred per cent Hebraic", Recollections of Wittgenstein, edited by Rush Rhees, Oxford University Press, 1984, p.161). He claimed that he was the greatest of Jewish thinkers ("Even the greatest of Jewish thinkers is no more than talented. (Myself for instance)": Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Culture and Value, Blackwell, Oxford 1980, p.18.) Despite the fact that Wittgenstein described himself as Jewish in “confessions” to colleagues at Cambridge, some writers deny that Wittgenstein was Jewish on the grounds that his mother’s mother, Maria Stallner, from what is now Cilje in Slovenia, was not Jewish. She too, however, despite her baptismal status as a Roman Catholic, also had Jewish maternal antecedents (through Therese Zöhrer – born 1797 in Steinbruckl - wife of Johann Stallner) and the Wittgensteins were indeed “pur sang” through matrilineal descent, which is all that matters halachically. Wittgenstein asked to make Aliyah to what was then British Mandated Palestine with Paul Engelmann in the 1920s, writing "Please take me with you". My book "The Jew of Linz" establishes that Wittgenstein was even the target of Adolf Hitler's very first recorded anti-Semitic vitriol. (The argument is summarized in the Wikipedia article The_Jew_of_Linz). Wittgenstein's Jewishness is not something incidental, but rather is fundamental to understanding the Holocaust and the history of the twentieth century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Heh. The Jew of Linz, huh? Haha. Ok. What a waste of my time. What's next, Protocols of the Elders of Zion? His mother wasn't Jewish. Get over it.Ernham 12:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it very peculiar that, in spite of the evidence presented in this discussion (most of it entirely mainstream and uncontroversial), Ernham continues to use this page as a forum for what are pretty clearly his personal resentments and obsessions. Unless I had seen it take place here myself, I wonder if I would even have believed that somebody could get so worked up over something like this. At any rate: Ernham, you really need to take a few deep breaths and rein in the rhetoric a bit, because this "Elders of Zion" nonsense from your last post is hovering very close to the edge of trolling. Let's all try to be grownups, shall we? Buck Mulligan 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to Buck Mulligan for his comment. Ernham is certainly getting tedious. All readers of this section should visit the site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020417222947/http://www.mckennacuneo.com/practice/Litigation/AustrianPropertyComplaint.PDF

(Sorry about the length of the address, but it's been archived.) It is the complaint of Austrian Jews as plaintiffs, against the Austrian government for assets seized from them under the Nazi racial laws. Please note the passage on p.6, stating that the plaintiffs are "Austrian Jews". Readers should then read the document (or search it) for the names "Stonborough", "Salzer" and "Wittgenstein". They will find Wittgenstein's sisters and brother (and descendants) named as plaintiffs and thus identifying themselves as Jews. If they were Jewish, then so was Wittgenstein and so was his mother. Ernham might like to explain how he knows the family was wrong to be party to the suit, and specifically how he knows that Wittgenstein's mother was NOT halachically Jewish given the clear evidence of the suit. In particular, I would welcome him posting his own genealogical researches on Therese Zöhrer, should he have done any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

More nonsense. The issue regarding "hebraic thought" examined in context means something completely different than has been insinuated above. He was referring to the bible and he clearly knows the difference between Hebraic" and "Judaic"(unfortunately, you probably do not). He was talking about how he felt what we do in this life essentially have consequences that carry with us into the hereafter, in contrast to the ideas held by the guy whom he was speaking with. So, he was speaking in a biblical sense(he actually refers to the bible, not the Torah, btw), he was referring to one aspect of his beliefs not his thoughts in general. Your claism about his mother is nonsense. His mother's mother was born and died a catholic. Can you prove otherwise? Mother wasn't Jewish, he never identified as Jewish, he wasn't raised Jewish. He wasn't Jewish by hardly any measure at all once you cut through the tangled web some of you try to weave.Ernham 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since "the guy whom he was speaking with" (ernham's expression) was M. O'C. Drury, who came to Cambridge for ordination as an Anglican priest, I can't see that ernham could be quite right about this. Drury would NOT have denied that what we do in this life has consequences for the hereafter. Perhaps ernham might expand his argument a little more here for sake of the more slow-to-see readers.

Now, on Wittgenstein's mother, Ernham is relying on her baptism as a Catholic to argue that she wasn't Jewish and challenges me to prove otherwise. I have already demonstrated that Wittgenstein's siblings/descendants claimed (as recently as a 2002 lawsuit) to be Jewish, at least for the purpose of regaining assets extorted from them by the Nazis, and that if their claims are true, then Wittgenstein was Jewish as was his mother. (Nobody is denying, incidentally, that the family professed Christianity publicly.) That Wittgenstein's mother was halachically Jewish is demonstrated by her descent from Therese Zohrer, whose biography is available from the University of Vienna. (See http://www.univie.ac.at/biografiA/daten/text/namen/z.htm.

The University of Vienna website offers a postal address in Karl Lueger Strasse, no less - named after its famed antisemitic mayor - for further enquiries. A postage stamp to obtain her biography - which is not posted on the Web - will cost ernham about a dollar.)

I am constrained somewhat in providing detailed source material in that I have a book coming out, dealing with this and other matters, but Wittgenstein was as Jewish as Freud, Marx or Einstein. That is, regardless of their religious PRACTICE, they were "pur sang" Jewish by DESCENT. Since Wittgenstein is in any case on record as having stated to his Cambridge colleagues that he was Jewish, ernham has rather a hard row to hoe in denying it, methinks. We might also recall the matter of the 1.7 tonnes of gold Hitler extorted from the Wittgensteins in August 1939, as ransom for the Wittgenstein sisters. (See "Wittgenstein's Poker" for details.) If they were NOT Jewish, this amount (circa $50,000,000 in modern values) would not have been necessary. But Wittgenstein was not only halachically Jewish, he was also THE Jew, the one historians have been seeking for sixty years, who occasioned Hitler's anti-Semitism. Hitler, that is, was at school with the son of Karl Wittgenstein,steel magnate, partner of the Rothschilds, richest Jew in central Europe and perhaps, at that time, in the world. "Wittgenstein was a Catholic" is a canard, admittedly often repeated, so ernham does have some excuse. But even stout Anglican Drury (who organised his Christian burial) was tormented afterwards by doubt that he had done the right thing. (See "Recollections of Wittgenstein".) Someone somewhere, ought to sing Kaddish for Wittgenstein. He deserves reburial on Mt Herzl. If ernham can accept that Einstein, Marx and Freud were Jewish, he oughtn't to balk at Wittgenstein. A lot of Jews, one might say, can think real, real good, and this particular one managed to bring down the Reich. I gently plead with ernham, please spend that dollar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

You keep bringing up non-related garbage. The nazi's interpretation of who is Jewish has no bearing on who is Jewish. That litigation has nothing to do with this. I find it so amazingly funny that there are such ethnocentric bigots running around wikipedia. I really wonder if there would be a "flock" here arguing to the bitter end that because half of his great grandparents were Jewish(ignoring that even they were all converted to Christianity) that he is "Jewish" if he were a serial killer or genocidal tyrant. He never identified as Jewish. His mother was not Jewish. The claims of being "pur sang" are easily demonstrated as false by examinging his maternal grandfather, so I can tell you straight out wherever you got that garbage quote from is an entirely bogus source. But, of course, it confirms your own bogus hypothesis, so you stick with it. I plead with you to even bother to read anything he wrote, because he has next nothing to do with Jews or Jewry, your ethnocentric wet dreams notwithstanding. oh, and the fact you aren't even aware of the actual conversation he was having when he mention "100% hebraic" is pretty shocking because you obviously have not checked any of your "facts". Who knows what kind of idiotic world you come from when you make a statment as stupid as LW took down the third reich(or whatever the hell "reich" you were dreaming about). I hope your book is related to your psychosis and nothing else. For the non bigots in here that actually want to know about the exchange where he mentioned "100% hebraic": Drury's actualy comment, "I had been reading Origin before. Origin taught that at the end of time there would be a final restitution of all things. That even Satan and the fallen angels would be restored to their former glory. This was a conception that appealed to me – but it was at once condemned as heretical. Wittgenstein's response: “Of course it was rejected. It would make nonsense of everything else. If what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with. Your religious ideas have always seemed to me more Greek than biblical. Whereas my thoughts are one hundred per cent Hebraic.”

And as far as the comment about "himself included", I would really have to see the comment in context. All I know about that quote seems to be that it was "discovered" after his death, thus highly suspect. I don't expect much out of someone who thinks "the Jew of Linz" as an informative source, however. Next you will share with me a Miss Cleo quote.Ernham 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernham writes:

1. "He never identified as Jewish".

I have already provided chapter and verse that he did, "confessing" the same to his Cambridge colleagues. "Recollections of Wittgenstein" contains further records of his "confessions" to Fania Pascal to this effect. In addition, I have provided sources showing that family members, including his uncle, his brother and sisters, considered themselves to be Jewish. I would ask Ernham not to keep ignoring these references.

2. "His mother was not Jewish".

I have provided the source that his mother WAS Jewish by descent through the maternal line. Whatever Ernham might think about this being irrelevant, it is the only thing that matters so far as Jews themselves are concerned. That is, Wittgenstein not only claimed to be Jewish; any Rabbinical authority would also recognise his claim was correct, given his matrilineal descent back to a Jewish female ancestor.

3. "The claims of being "pur sang" are easily demonstrated as false by examinging his maternal grandfather"

The religious affiliation of the grandfather is an irrelevancy under Jewish religious law. But surely Ernham must in any case see a difficulty here in asserting his own opinion over that of Wittgenstein's uncle, who was in a better position to actually KNOW?

3. "that garbage quote from is an entirely bogus source",

The quote by Wittgenstein's uncle that the Wittgenstein's Jewishness was "pur sang" is given in both the standard Monk and McGuinness biographies. If it really is garbage, we need some further evidence apart from Ernham's mere dismissal of it. So far his dismissal appears based on nothing so much as a refusal to admit that Wittgenstein might actually have been Jewish after all.

4. "And as far as the comment about "himself included", I would really have to see the comment in context. All I know about that quote seems to be that it was "discovered" after his death, thus highly suspect".

Well ... it's in "Culture and Value" on the page I quoted, just as I quoted it. Ernham owes us an account of why he thinks it suspect, apart from the mere fact that it disproves what he claims. One trusts he is not slurring Wittgenstein's literary executors.

5. "I don't expect much out of someone who thinks "the Jew of Linz" as an informative source, however. Next you will share with me a Miss Cleo quote."

Any discussion of "The Jew of Linz" should really be on the Wikipedia page "The_Jew_of_Linz". Should Ernham have any intelligent criticisms to make of its specific arguments, rather than sweeping blasts of dismissal, however, he is welcome to open a new discussion section and present them. He might also support his dismissal by noting any factual errors he can find in the book.

6. On Wittgenstein saying ".. my thoughts are 100% Hebraic", Ernham's argument is that whatever it was he meant by it, it wasn't ".. my thoughts are 100% Hebraic". While there might be something to be said for Ernham's argument here, it must be obvious to us all that it has to lie very deep.

[edit] He is regarded as...

"He is regarded as" is true if a small group regard him as a great philosopher, or if a large group regard him as a great philosopher, or if everyone regards him as a great philosopher. There is no need for "some" or "many". Banno 22:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

everyone doesn't regard him as such, but surely some people do. If it was less exaggerated of a claim, it would suffice to say it without "some". For instance, "he was an important and influential philospher ..." Ernham 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Who does not regard him as influential? They would be either foolish or ignorant. Whether he is "important" may be debatable, so my wording[5] is preferable. This is about English usage, not opinion. Banno 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the wrong queston. You forgot the qualifier, the weasel-like usage of "most". Who doesn't regard him as "one of the MOST influential", Well, I can think of about my entire Philosophy department at university(save for one with a symbolic-logic "fetish"). His important contributions were mostly esoteric.Ernham 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that your Philosophy Department is foolish or that it is ignorant? Being influential does not mean being correct, as the present U.S. president so ably demonstrates. Nor does begin esoteric imply that one is not influential. What do you think that "influential" means? I understand "W. is influential" to mean that he influenced other philosophers. Are you wishing to claim that this is not the case? My apologies for reverting your other edit. Banno 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

again, his "influence" in philosophy was moderate to minimal to the majority of the discipline. If anyone believes otherwise, show me any profound philosophers hence that cite him as someone that influenced their work. He introduced some novel concepts but was generally "mor of the same" when it comes to philosophy.Ernham 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Banno, don't bother arguing with this guy who obviously doesn't understand the various strictures concerning "weasel words". Just find fifteen minutes to spend in an adequately-stocked library, and find a suitable quotation by an authority about Wittgenstein's importance. For example, perusing my copy of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, I see that Bertrand Russell wrote in the introduction that the contents of this monograph "makes it one which no serious philosopher can afford to neglect." Were my personal library less limited, I'm sure that I could find several quotations that would prove even more conclusively Wittgenstein's importance. -- llywrch 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's brilliant. First the intelligent use of 'weasel words,' then the suggestion to look at the introduction to the Tractatus, an introduction Wittgenstein himself raged against for misrepresenting his work. 24.88.76.172 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Singlen

I'm not sure whether the issue at stake here is whether Wittgenstein has has been influential to most people, or whether he's one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century ... but I just made an adjustment of the last edit by 24.88.76.172, who is pretty obviously a non-signed-in Ernham. It seems to me that to say that the guy was considered (whether by some, by many, or by most) to be "the most significant philosopher" is a much stronger claim than my version, that he is considered to be "among the most significant philosophers" since the latter admits of a bit more room for people to agree to disagree. That is, for people who have a pet favorite philsopher whose name isn't L. Wittgenstein not to be irritated when they see our article's text, and feel the need to edit it. Actually, I guess my version is pretty similar to Banno's, only with more qualifiers about how his work has been influential, which I don't think can be denied. Buck Mulligan 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preamble

Whoever Tonyberge is (his user page seems to be inactive), he might want to actually read the body of the article before adding what is basically a lot of redundancy to the preamble. The article is already bordering on too long, and we don't need repetition. Also, much of what Tonyberge has written in the aforementioned preamble is rather one-sided, in terms of the general direction of Wittgenstein's thought, as well as it's account of the general drift of philosophy and science in the latter half of the twentieth century. Finally, when making additions of the kind that he's made, it's customary to add a note in the editing summary space to let others know what you've been up to (even some of our more contentious editors are good enough to do that). Thanks in advance. Buck Mulligan 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of my preamble was to introduce Wittgenstein to a general audience. One that isn´t familiar with his work. The preamble as it is will not raise immediate attention. This could lead the general audience not to read any further. It is my opinion that a preamble should deliver some punchlines straight away; especially with a philosopher who is still not a well known name outside of academic circles. The entire article, all though well written and argumented for an insider audience, still leaves him somewhat obscure. A publisher who would put the exsisting preamble text on the back of the cover of a book about Wittgenstein, would probably not sell a lot of copies. Tonyberge 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the preamble is a bit dry as it currently stands, and that a very casual reader might not stop to peruse the entire article solely on the strength of its introduction. However, fortunately for us, we're not in the business of selling books or evangelizing for any particular subject. As far as delivering punchlines is concerned, you have a point, but what you added was more of a short history of 2500 years of western thought (Plato thru Wittgenstein, the "end of metaphysics" (as it were), etc.), and some of your phrasing is certainly not voiced in such a way that an "outsider" to his thought would understand what W. was all about.

For instance, you have: "Wittgenstein made clear that metaphysical ideas could not be known, but that these concepts only had a certain meaning in the context of language." I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to say, but it's not a great bet that anyone who wasn't already well-versed in the man's writings would. You continue, a bit later: "It is not that we can deny that there are metaphysical rules, for instance related to aesthetics or ethics, but we can't express these in our spoken language in a verifiable way." Again, to anyone who didn't know much about the topic at hand, the notion of a "metaphysical" rule (as opposed to a rule, per se) would probably be less than transparent. The same goes for the non-contextual talk of verificationism, which--again, to a non-reader of Wittgenstein--sounds like the guy ought to have been a member of the Vienna circle. Finally, the mention of Popper, who we both know had some big problems with verificationism, seems to further confuse things. For my money, Wittgenstein can't be called either a verificationist of a falsificationist. But of course plenty of people disagree with me about that.

Which brings me to the other reason I removed the preamble. My experience with these philsophy-oriented articles is that people, myself included, are tempted to write them as though they were writing something rather more argumentative than a research paper, and then frustration sets in when other people don't see eye-to-eye with one's take on a particular issue (again, myself included). And of course, Wittgenstein is particularly troublesome this way, thanks to his mid-career change in direction, as well as the ambiguity of his argumentative/investigative style.

But having said all this, I do agree that the preamble as it stands isn't exactly going to set the world on fire. Maybe the thing to do would be to add a brief introductory/overview section, after the preamble but before jumping right into his life story. The Heidegger page might be a nice model to follow in this case. Notice, though, how brief and general the introduction is in that case--nothing very specific is said about his place in the tradition, apart from the fact that his thinking: (a) concerned the nature of being, (b) was quite revolutionary, (c) tended to strongly divide people, and (d) had a major influence on a lot of famous people who went on to become very influential in their own right. (Well, that, and: (e) he was briefly a Nazi--but that, thank God, isn't relevant to our discussion of Wittgenstein...) So what do you say? Buck Mulligan 22:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Heidegger like introduction is a good idea. There is certainly a challenge in making general statements about Wittgenstein and his importance, in my opinion monumental importance, and at the some time choose the right words that are accessible and objective. I will post a new version over the weekendTonyberge 12:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put in a short introduction trying to describe the main themes in a couple of sentences, in order to provide some highlights to the reader that is not familiar with the manTonyberge 16:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intro

Wittgenstein philiosophy and ideas have evolved during his life but he has always been concerned with the importance of language and its relation to the way we think. A lot of his investigations went into how we us our language to describe the world around us and how we formulate theories. His thoughts uncover the limitations of the use of spoken language to gain knowledge, achieve certainty or make sensefull statements. His ideas and investigations have had a profound impact on different disciplines like metaphysics, ontology, psychology and epistomology and are considered by some as a major turning point in the history of Philosophy.

"Sensefull"?!? The first sentence is grammatically incorrect, since he is dead. Wittgenstein did not specialise in spoken language, nor was he interested in how we formulate theories so much as how we speak about them. The remainder is a string of motherhood statements, held together by weasels. Overall, it doesn't actually say anything. Banno 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the introduction has come up in discussions in how to get a layman introduced to Wittgenstein.See preamble.Why don´t you give it a try? I´m curious to see with what you will come up, Banno Tonyberge 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kant

What evidence is there of a significant influence on Wittgenstein from Kant? According to his biographers, he read very little historical philosophy. Transcendentalism? Doesn't sound right. Banno 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any working knowledge of philosophy and/or transcendentalism? (or Kant or.... Wittgenstein?)It seems rather unlkley given your comment. Edit: though the use of Transcendentalism can be confused for tangently related things. "Transcendentality" is more clear, but there shouldn't be any confusion on what is Kantian.Ernham 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)