Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I've read somewhere that Wittgenstein "solved all the philosophical problems". I know that there are threads by a former member of this forum Rosa-something, but I found those too dense and too difficult to understand. Can someone explain how exactly did he solve these problems if he did or even if he didn't, why someone thinks/thought that he did?

[Thirsty Crow]

I've read somewhere that Wittgenstein "solved all the philosophical problems". I know that there are threads by a former member of this forum Rosa-something, but I found those too dense and too difficult to understand. Can someone explain how exactly did he solve these problems if he did or even if he didn't, why someone thinks/thought that he did?
Solving all the philosophical problems is a tongue-in-cheek way of getting the point across that traditional philosophy with its pseudo-problems (e.g. philosophical zombies; this first came to mind) is nothing but mystification that doesn't get us any inch closer to knowing the world.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not sure if LR's answer is clear enough. Wittgenstein 'solved' all of philosophy's problems by noting how philosophy's problems themselves were a result of a deeper, simpler problem and one which revolves around a misunderstanding of language. In Wittgenstein's mind, philosophers were effectively talking in circles as they had long since abstracted away from everyday, common sense, ideas. In this sense philosophers are no different than the religious - Wittgenstein does away with their faulty foundations for "knowledge of X" (be it god or free will or even 'knowledge') and roots us back in our bodies and our experiences.

From this perspective, he may have been one of the most materialist philosophers I can think of and hence is of great value to any Marxist/leftist.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

So would this mean, for instance, that it doesn't make any sense to ask "what is justice"? Would he say that our understanding of justice is based on our everyday experience and by asking such a question and philosophising about it one is abstracting these experiences and that everyday material reality away and, hence, creates a situation where it becomes impossible to know what is justice, because you are abstracting away the very things that define what it is?

I am not sure if my question above even makes sense or is understandable, but to put it simply then: Why would Wittgenstein think that asking a question "what is justice" is wrong/nonsensical?

[Thirsty Crow]

So would this mean, for instance, that it doesn't make any sense to ask "what is justice"?It is sensible to ask what's justice but in a different context than the one pursued by traditional philosophy which seeks unconditional foundations for it.

The way you can pose the question is individually, when talking to a person, asking them how they understand the notion, do they think they implicitly, or even explicitly make use of it in their living, acting in this world, and you can indeed sensibly ask about the social dissemination of specific views on justice, either through ideology and culture, and what kind of behavior they are intended to foster (and if they do foster it, how effectively, whether there are unforeseen effects and so on).

These aren't what's called foundational, ahistorical inquiries. The search for the ultimate foundation of justice (e.g. God) is non-sense and only results in pseudo-problems. If your interested in a book dealing with philosophical problems and really clearly outlining a down to earth Wittgensteinian approach, I'd recommend Guy Robinson's Philosophy and Mystification (send me a PM if you want a link to download; I dunno if it's ok to post it here).

[RedMaterialist]

So would this mean, for instance, that it doesn't make any sense to ask "what is justice"? Would he say that our understanding of justice is based on our everyday experience... Why would Wittgenstein think that asking a question "what is justice" is wrong/nonsensical?

I think Hanna Pitkin argued (as well as others) that LW conceived language as a social product, which would be a very Marxist interpretation. (I don't believe LW ever mentioned Marx.) I think it would be fair to say that justice then would, for LW, be a social product, so that justice would be tribal, patriarchal, slave, feudal, bourgeois and, finally, communist justice. The meaning of justice would depend on the context in which it occurs and its historical and social development.

Unfortunately, this would mean that any social system would produce its own system of justice: the Nazis claimed that they were justified in exterminating the Jews because it would make the world a better place.

[Decolonize The Left]

So would this mean, for instance, that it doesn't make any sense to ask "what is justice"? Would he say that our understanding of justice is based on our everyday experience and by asking such a question and philosophising about it one is abstracting these experiences and that everyday material reality away and, hence, creates a situation where it becomes impossible to know what is justice, because you are abstracting away the very things that define what it is?

I am not sure if my question above even makes sense or is understandable, but to put it simply then: Why would Wittgenstein think that asking a question "what is justice" is wrong/nonsensical?

Essentially, the term "justice" is fundamentally contextualized within a) a linguistic setting, b) a world setting (socio-political-cultural-economic). As RedMaterialist notes above, Nazis did indeed have their own justice; at least, they saw it that way.

But what philosophers like to do is look at the term outside of these contexts - to look at it in Plato's "world of forms" sense, as though it existed outside of itself. Justice, in this world, has a set number of characteristics which can be explained, analyzed, and applied to given worlds. So for the philosophers something is either just or not depending upon its meeting criteria s,t,p, and q. Does lying meet criteria s,t,p, and q? Then it is unjust or just? The context of the lie, or the notion of truth/lie in the first place, doesn't enter into the discussion.

The real point here is that by believing that there is such a thing as justice in and of itself, philosophers create a world (where justice lives alone among other concepts) which doesn't exist. They then use this mystical world to make very real claims on the real world. Hence they are employing an anti-world perspective, to use a Nietzschean term, and this perspective is damaging as it takes root in our collective society.

[blake 3:17]

Mdmr -- are you familiar with the new writings on Wittgenstein and Heidegger? There's a couple of books out and I'm very intrigued. I haven't read any of it -- just seen the odd mention here and there.

[Decolonize The Left]

Mdmr -- are you familiar with the new writings on Wittgenstein and Heidegger? There's a couple of books out and I'm very intrigued. I haven't read any of it -- just seen the odd mention here and there.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're referring to; do you have titles and/or authors?

[blake 3:17]

There's Groundless Grounds http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/38529-groundless-grounds-a-study-of-wittgenstein-and-heidegger/

and some other writings I don't have reference for which were referenced in a very interesting book by Jonathan Lear called Radical Hope http://www.practicalmattersjournal.org/issue/2/reviews/radical-hope

Anyways I've seen some references to this stuff but haven't read anything. Seems counterintuitive on the surface, but makes sense on a deeper level.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

This short conversation on Wittgenstein was very useful for understanding his thought. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgW_PFl-Xs4
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgW_PFl-Xs4)