What's the point of Wittgenstein?

[Hit The North]

What's the point of so many threads on Wittgenstein here at RevfLeft.com given these two quotes:

Wittgenstein: "Language sets everyone the same traps; it is an immense network of easily accessible wrong turnings. And so we watch one man after another walking down the same paths and we know in advance where he will branch off, where walk straight on without noticing the side turning, etc. etc. What I have to do then is erect signposts at all the junctions where there are wrong turnings so as to help people past the danger points."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm#H4

and

Marx: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/wo...eses/theses.htm (http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)

Discuss.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: its almost as if W was talking directly at you when he said this.

Amazing!

Alas, to no avail, since you too have fallen for Hegelian hocus pocus.

And the Marx quote is fully consistent with W: since Philosophy (including dialectics) makes no sense, us materialists (and we hope to recruit you to our anti-Idealisty cause one day) rightly concentrate on changing the world.

You mystics though, just love your Hermetic 'theory', don't you?

[Hit The North]

R:


And the Marx quote is fully consistent with W: since Philosophy (including dialectics) makes no sense, us materialists (and we hope to recruit you to our anti-Idealisty cause one day) rightly concentrate on changing the world.

But on the contrary, Rosa, Witty (as we materialists lampoon him) sets his task as improving our powers of interpretation (as the quote irrefutably demonstrates). In that sense, he is the personification of the philosopher.

Thusly, according to the Marx quote, also the personification of pointless (or, at best, beside the point).

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 27, 2006 05:08 pm
Marx: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/wo...eses/theses.htm (http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)

Discuss.
Umm... Marx is clearly wrong or being misinterpreted. Philosophy has instrumental value. If I know I should not believing in God, how does that not change my material reality, for instance? Marx never said philosophy is useless. He said we should try and change the world - and philosophy is a means of doing that.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+November 28, 2006 01:46 am--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ November 28, 2006 01:46 am)
Citizen [email protected] 27, 2006 05:08 pm
Marx: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/wo...eses/theses.htm (http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)

Discuss.
Umm... Marx is clearly wrong or being misinterpreted. Philosophy has instrumental value. If I know I should not believing in God, how does that not change my material reality, for instance? Marx never said philosophy is useless. He said we should try and change the world - and philosophy is a means of doing that. [/b]
That's not my reading. My reading is that Marx is making a distinction between contemplation and action. That's not to say he rejects theory per se - but he is making a break with the tradition of thinking (i.e. philosophy) that he was schooled in, in favour of a scientific orientation where theory is constantly measured against practice.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's not my reading. My reading is that Marx is making a distinction between contemplation and action. That's not to say he rejects theory per se - but he is making a break with the tradition of thinking (i.e. philosophy) that he was schooled in, in favour of a scientific orientation where theory is constantly measured against practice.

And that reading is of course the correct one.

[Bretty123]

Marx and Wittgenstein would agree on many points then given the emphasis on USE. Wittgenstein was indeed breaking from traditional philosophy in many ways as was Marx.

Wittgenstein was advocating the same thing as Marx in several respects. He was advocating the practice of emphasizing the USE of concepts, and that which is useless [or nonsensical] is to be dissolved.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Marx said "philosphers" not "philosophy". That is, he meant that the majority of philosophers just churn out theories that have no practical application. He didn't criticise the concept of it though. That's my interpretation.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


But on the contrary, Rosa, Witty (as we materialists lampoon him) sets his task as improving our powers of interpretation (as the quote irrefutably demonstrates). In that sense, he is the personification of the philosopher.

Thusly, according to the Marx quote, also the personification of pointless (or, at best, beside the point).

Since you know pratically nothing of analytic philosophy, and prefer to make things up, you ought to begin each of your posts on such matters with a far more honest: "Once upon a time...."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Marx said "philosophers" not "philosophy". That is, he meant that the majority of philosophers just churn out theories that have no practical application. He didn't criticise the concept of it though. That's my interpretation.

When this is compared with all the other negative things Marx said about Philosophers and about Philosophy (and the fact that after 1844 he wrote practically zero on the subject), it is clear that, as Bretty said, Marx and W saw practically eye-to-eye on this: Philosophy is just self-important hot air, and the sooner it is put in its place (the bin) the better.

This is not an accident; W changed his entire view of such matters under the influence of his many Marxist friends (in fact practically all his friends were either Communists, Trotskyists or other types of socialist), and under the direct influence of Marxist theorists (like Sraffa, Gramsci's friend).

That is why he was offered the post of professor of philosophy at Kazan University (Lenin's old college), which is not something that would have been open to someone perceived as a 'bourgeois' thinker.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Right. So we agree? :o

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Right. So we agree?

Only if "agree" means "disagree".

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Then you've misunderstood me. I was pretty sure I was going with your usual line of saying that almost all philosophy has been ruling class tosh, but some stuff like Wittgenstein is okay. Marx was saying philosophers, meaning most philsosophers thus far, spout ruling class tosh. Leaving a gap for real philosophy, such as Wittgenstein's, which leaves them seeing eye to eye, exactly as you said. :blink:

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Philosophy is just self-important hot air, and the sooner it is put in its place (the bin) the better.

I didn't see this bit. Okay, we still disagree, my bad.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, you must remember that W's philosophy is, like Marx's, an anti-philosophy, designed to bring it to an end.

But you have to be able to show people where it has led them astray.

It's no good just branding it as hot air.

That is why W engaged in the detailed analysis of the source of the confusions that have bedevilled us since Greek times -- and to which we have not found a single solution, or even one that looks close. These are very deep problems, so it takes a lot of effort to expose that source.

I think W failed because he was not political enough, so I am attempting to make up for his neglect in this area, exposing this as ruling-class hot air.

I realise we disagree, but you need to re-assess Marx's postion on this, since he and I think alike (or 99% alike) here.

The only theory we need is scientific; anything else amounts to a capitulation to idealism (the belief that there are non-material things running nature that science cannot study).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'd still calll anti-philosophy a philosophy.

Surely there are some things that science can't touch? Like, I dunno, metaphysics or ethics, or art perhaps. Perhaps all our thinking on these subjects will be worthless at best and worthy of attack at worst, but I just can't see an alternative.

Just to take the example of Descartes' demon. How would you go about solving the problem scientifically?

-Alex

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


This is not an accident; W changed his entire view of such matters under the influence of his many Marxist friends (in fact practically all his friends were either Communists, Trotskyists or other types of socialist), and under the direct influence of Marxist theorists (like Sraffa, Gramsci's friend).

That is why he was offered the post of professor of philosophy at Kazan University (Lenin's old college), which is not something that would have been open to someone perceived as a 'bourgeois' thinker.


Do you have a reference to an account of Witty's Marxist turn? I'd be interested to read it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Do you have a reference to an account of Witty's Marxist turn? I'd be interested to read it.

You keep promising to read stuff, and then disappear, only to re-surface again weeks later with your latest set of fibs.

So, yes I do have the references, I posted this stuff months ago. It's all at my site (in an Essay I published there in August).

So, be a good mystic, disappear once more.

When we need you, I promise to rub the lamp again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


I'd still calll anti-philosophy a philosophy.

This is like calling anti-capitalism, capitalism.

If it makes you happy to do so, who am I to stop you?


Surely there are some things that science can't touch? Like, I dunno, metaphysics or ethics, or art perhaps.

As to metaphysics, that is pure idealism.

So, if you are a materialist, you will regard my claims above as good news.

As to ethics, you should know that this is all ideological.

Even if it weren't, why you think philosophy can help decide what is right/wrong, good/bad escapes me.

If I were to offer the service of someone who had not solved a single problem in 2500 years, and not even looked like getting close, I hope you would tell me to stick that advice where the sun does not shine.

Why you listen to philosophy/philosophers therefore beats me.

Only if you have a learning curve close the world's worst would you want to look to philosophy to solve a single problem.

Guesswork would be better....


Just to take the example of Descartes' demon. How would you go about solving the problem scientifically?

I would not since it is not a problem.

Why? Well, we debated this a while back when Chrysalis was still talking to me....

[BurnTheOliveTree]

This is like calling anti-capitalism, capitalism.

Oh, come off it.

doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

That's the first definition on google of philosophy... Being against philosophy is a belief accepted as authoritative by your school of thought, yes? A philosophy then.


As to metaphysics, that is pure idealism.

Undoubtedly. But even if it doesn't have a material basis, and can't ever really be said to be true or false, there can be no harm in speculating on questions that we can't truly know the answer to.

Even if it weren't, why you think philosophy can help decide what is right/wrong, good/bad escapes me.

I suppose I subscribe to Hume's moral sentimentalist thing. Morals aren't really rational things, they're personal and sentimental. Science can't put ethics in a test tube and measure and assess it, so we need an alternative. Nihilism, perhaps, but that's a philosohy too.

Why? Well, we debated this a while back when Chrysalis was still talking to me....

Mind explaining? I'm not trying to be flippant or anything, I'm keen to learn. :)

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Oh, come off it.

doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

That's the first definition on google of philosophy... Being against philosophy is a belief accepted as authoritative by your school of thought, yes? A philosophy then.

Well, if you are going to look at dictionaries to solve all your philosophical problems, then why study the subject?

And, do you suppose that anti-capitalists use dictionaries to define capitalism? Does that make them capitalists if they oppose it?

I gave you a brief summary of my reasons (they are spelt out in excrutiating detail at my site): in order to end philsophy (as it has traditionally been done) it takes much argument.

[And I do not accept any 'beliefs' from W, just his anti-philosophical method -- so it is not a 'school' for me, nor a dogma, nor is it authoritative (since, as I noted earlier, I challenge it for not going far enough), so it is not a philosophy, even on your 'definition'.]

If you want to call that a 'Philosophy', fine. Continue to do so -- but I will not. In fact, in order to prevent misunderstanding, I call this sort of Philosophy 'traditional' philosophy' at my site; now I do not really care what it is called, so long as it is terminated.


Undoubtedly. But even if it doesn't have a material basis, and can't ever really be said to be true or false, there can be no harm in speculating on questions that we can't truly know the answer to.

Depends on what you mean by 'harm'; if I am right and the systematic study of metaphysics is an exercise in ruling-class thought, then I rather think it does harm our thought processes -- and it ensures that the ruling ideas rule us too (as Marx said they would). On this, see below (my comments on ethics -- bold type).

If you mean aimless speculation for fun; that is up to you -- but do not think that it means any more than doing a cross word puzzle. For myself, I'd rather watch my toenails grow -- far more useful and rewarding -- and far quicker to get anywhere.

I just think you will confuse the issues if you call what I want to do (i.e., end this subject) by the same name -- hence my reference to the anti-capitalists earlier.


I suppose I subscribe to Hume's moral sentimentalist thing. Morals aren't really rational things, they're personal and sentimental. Science can't put ethics in a test tube and measure and assess it, so we need an alternative. Nihilism, perhaps, but that's a philosohy too.

This is Exhibit A for the prosecution therefore, in that it just shows you how the thoughts of Philosophers can damage your capactiy to think (no offense intended -- you are in a long line of similar victims).

You have to misuse/distort the words we already have to depict our moral choices, etc. (just as Hume did -- just as all traditional Philosophers have done) to make this work.

I will not offer an alternative 'theory', since none work, and for the same reason -- they are all based on a systematic misuse of language.


Mind explaining?

Well, I went into this at great length a few months ago, so I can only refer you to that debate.

I'll find the link and post it later.

Ok, you will find it here (this led to me and Chrysalis falling out, permanently):

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=48358&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48358&hl=)

I have just re-read this thread, and it does not really tackle the 'evil demon' but I think you can guess how I might tackle this notion from what I do say about Descartes's use of radical doubt.

Let me know if you want more details.

[gilhyle]

What differentiates Marx from Wittgenstein is what is interesting and the assumption in Wittgenstein's view of his own critique of philosophy is that it leaves everything else as it was before. Marx's view of his critique of philosophy is that it is part and parcel of the process of transforming the underlying reality. For Marxism there is no overthrowing of defective forms of thinking except by contributing to the overthrow of the social relations which cause them. This is Marx's post-enlightenment perspective. In this view there is no need for a complete or systematic critique of philosophy, there is a need only for critiques of philosophies in so far as that contributes to the overthrow the social relations - the point is not to interpret the world, it is to overthrow its form of organisation. Marxism walks away from philosophy, while Wittgenstein becomes its internal opposition.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


What differentiates Marx from Wittgenstein is what is interesting and the assumption in Wittgenstein's view of his own critique of philosophy is that it leaves everything else as it was before. Marx's view of his critique of philosophy is that it is part and parcel of the process of transforming the underlying reality.

You will find this very difficult to prove from texts taken from anything Marx wrote after his abandonment of Philosopohy circa 1845/6.

Your final summary:


Marxism walks away from philosophy, while Wittgenstein becomes its internal opposition.

is, however, a little closer to the truth.

However, Marxism does not walk away from anything; it shows that Philosophy (including dialectics) is a bogus, ideological accretion; Wittgenstein (interpreted in the way I attempt to do) reveals how and why this is so.

In that way, everything remains as it was before (since Philosophy can change nothing, just alter the phantasies we form) -- leaving it to political struggle, coupled with a scientific understanding of the world, to change things.

[gilhyle]

I think that you are absolutely correct that it is difficult to show this from Marx's writings. I think there is one work that illustrates it as well as anywhere, namely the bulk of the German Ideology VOL One devoted to Bauer and Stirner. In that work, Marx displays a willingness to criticise philosophical positions, but always subordinating such criticisms to the over-riding rejection of opponents on class and political grounds.

But I appreciate this is an obscure text about very second rate philosophers and I dont want to draw this thread into the complex activity of reading it.

Maybe more telling is the fact that there are no texts in the criticism of philosophy from Marx's subsequent work.....exactly what you would expect from a man who had walked away from philosophy.

If we are talking texts, rather then figuring out implications of other stances taken, in effect what I am asking (to anyone who thinks there is a similarity of approach), is where are the texts by Marx that prefigure the methodology of Wittgenstein ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, looks like we finally agree, or nearly agree, on something!


If we are talking texts, rather then figuring out implications of other stances taken, in effect what I am asking (to anyone who thinks there is a similarity of approach), is where are the texts by Marx that prefigure the methodology of Wittgenstein ?

There are serious problems trying to assimilate these two since they come from totally different traditions.

If you can get hold of this book, it will largely answer your questions:

Kitching, G., and Pleasants, N. (2002) (eds.), Marx And Wittgenstein. Knowledge, Morality And Politics (Routledge).

Don't be put off by the fact that Gavin Kitching is co-editior, this is quite a creditable work.

If you can also check out Rupert Read's website, you will find other stimulating Essays:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/

For example, this:

http://www.humboldt.edu/~essays/read.html

Read is also a contributor to the above book.

And Guy Robinson's book:

Robinson, G. (2003), Philosophy And Mystification. A Reflection On Nonsense And Clarity (Fordham University Press).

Who is perhaps the best Wittgensteinain/Marxist around.

His site is:

http://www.guyrobinson.net/

Which contains several of his essays.

He manages to say in 1/2% of the space what I try to say in 500 pages!!

And he is more pro-dialectics than me!

[Raúl Duke]

Philosophy is just self-important hot air, and the sooner it is put in its place (the bin) the better.

If this is true, than I shouldn't be interested in philodophy. (I should maybe just stick to science....hmm) but....


Burn, you must remember that W's philosophy is, like Marx's, an anti-philosophy, designed to bring it to an end.

But you have to be able to show people where it has led them astray.

It's no good just branding it as hot air.

So we learn W and Marx's "philosophy", which is really an antiphilosophy, just to bring philosophy to an end.

(the whole sentence sounds odd....., but the premise of an anti-philosophy "philosophy" sounds interesting)

So analytical philosophy (of the Wittengetstein type) and Marxist philosophy is just design to show people that philosophy has lead people astray and all it is is hot air or do they have other uses and reasons?

Once current, traditional or all philosophies ends, what would replace it? (I suppose science....)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Johnny D, W tried to change our whole comprehension of Philosophy from being an attempt to provide a priori 'knowledge' of the world (or its equivalent) to one of exposing the errors we are prone to make when we misconstrue aspects of language that are integral to its capacity to communicate with what it supposedly represents in the world -- a bit like confusing a canvass, frame and paint with what a painting might actually try to picture.

I try to go beyond W, and use Marx's ideas to reveal the ideological reasons why all this began (in the west in ancient Greece) and how, once it crept into Marxism, it has led many astray.

You can find all this summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

What replaces Philosophy? A big hole (or a bonfire, or both), I hope.

Science cannot replace it, since that would suggest that Philosophy did have some use (in that is was a quest for knowledge that went wrong, when it was no more of a search than the mumbling of a drunk is a search for knowledge).

[Hegemonicretribution]

The word philosophy is only useful insofar as it allows communication. The trouble is that we don't all agree on what it is that constitutes philosophy. For me it is thinking on a meta level, so philosophical application can be found many places in life.

Traditional philosophy has been a bourgeois past-time and this is reflected within it. Whatever it is that Rosa is trying to express as useless I am sure that I agree has little use except perhaps seeming novel to some. Extended thinking is crucial however, as is analytical and critical thinking.

I have posted a "defence" of sorts many times over for the rest of philosophy so I will try and find a link rather than typing some great long thing...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As far as I can recall Heg, unless I am mistaken, your defence amounted to no more than that Philosophy was merely a pleasant distraction, a bit like, say, Scrabble.

[ComradeRed]

Once current, traditional or all philosophies ends, what would replace it? (I suppose science....) Replace it? For what? In what context?

As in "The three foundations of marxism are: British Economics, French Socialism, and German Philosophy" then I would say "Mathematics".

(You would actually be surprised how deep and qualitative math can become when you are talking about topology, algebras, group theory, category theory, etc.; and unlike philosophy, it's useful!)

But what would replace it "as a field"? As Rosa said, nothing.

[Raúl Duke]

As in "The three foundations of marxism are: British Economics, French Socialism, and German Philosophy" then I would say "Mathematics".

(You would actually be surprised how deep and qualitative math can become when you are talking about topology, algebras, group theory, category theory, etc.; and unlike philosophy, it's useful!)

Really interesting...

I don't considered myself good in math....yet I'm interested in your idea.

Tell me in what ways can math be deep and qualitive? (give examples, the most basic ones if possible -the highest course in math I've taken is algebra-)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:26 am

As in "The three foundations of marxism are: British Economics, French Socialism, and German Philosophy" then I would say "Mathematics".

(You would actually be surprised how deep and qualitative math can become when you are talking about topology, algebras, group theory, category theory, etc.; and unlike philosophy, it's useful!)

Really interesting...

I don't considered myself good in math....yet I'm interested in your idea.

Tell me in what ways can math be deep and qualitive? (give examples, the most basic ones if possible -the highest course in math I've taken is algebra-)
:huh: Simple examples of deep math? :huh:

Well, the first stuff that comes to mind is topology and things of the sort; but the deepest math that I've ever had to deal with were toposes. There's no real way I could describe how it works, but it's kind of like a Graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory) except the nodes are "mathematical structures" (e.g. sets, etc.). The arrows would be "functions" or "morphisms" that change one structure into another.

From the collection of all arrows away from an object, we can find out everything we'd ever like to know about the object (this is called the Yoneda lemma) from just the arrows alone. It's a powerful tool for relational quantum mechanics (which is what I'm using toposes on at the moment).

That's used as a form of logic! I can't really explain to you much more though how the math is deep unless you are doing the math; but the math you'd be looking at would be abstract algebra, category theory, and so on.