Marx and Wittgenstein

[bretty]

I've read Wittgenstein and some Marx and currently am beginning Capital. One thing that caught my eye is that the aspect of use is used in both Wittgenstein's concept of language as it being its use, insofar as words come alive by their use in language.

Further, Marx says that the Commodity has a use-value and the general measurement of value is labour. However the labour has to be qualitatively useful in order to have a quantitative value in relation to other commodities.



Also one can see the similarity in the uselessness of a commodity and what Wittgenstein would call nonsensical language.

Can anyone comment or criticize my notice? Or can someone expand on this?

[hoopla]

Erm, not sure I see how commodities are useless. I mean, they all have a use value don't they :mellow:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:

1) You need to recall that W did not equate meaning and use.

2) The use of analogies drawn from one area applied in another can be helpful, but must be deployed carefully.

3) Meaning does not depend on how much socially necressary labour time (averaged out) has been put into a piece of language (whatever that could mean!).

4) Use value and use are not the same.

5) Nonsense, as W understood the term changed. In the Tractatus it was connected with pseudo-proposition that could not be given (or had not been given) as sense according to the criteria he laid down. Later on, it was given a much more social characterisation, connected with 'logical grammar' and social practice, and was far less precise.

The uselessness of a commodity (as Hoopla pointed out) is a little more problematic. So I cannot comment until you say what you mean by this.

[bretty]

If nobody needs a commodity then the labour that directly correlates it's value with the value of the commodity will have no value. At least thats how I had it figured out.

For example if someone buys rocks and nobody wants a bunch of rocks worth however much general labour was put into the pile of rocks then it is a useless commodity.



Same with Language such in the case of say Heidegger. Where he uses neologisms to define terms and people become confused because they dont exist as useful words in any language game. So the words become essentially useless regardless of their meaning because they aren't useful for social communication.

Example given, if Heidegger uses the word Da-sein to represent the human reality etc. and its use is purely personal then it has no use in a specific language game.

Do you see my point at least?

I know people generally think in analogy but correct me if i'm wrong on this one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, I can only refer you to my earlier comments, which you seem not to have read.

[bretty]

Can you elaborate? I'm not adept enough to be able to take those small comments as constructive criticism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, I am not sure I can until you say where they fall short of what you want.

[hoopla]

Heidegger is ace&#33; Someone say something clever on him <_<

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What is that monumental bumbler, Heidegger, doing being mentioned on this thread.

Move it to religion....

[hoopla]

Religion without an afterlife, though. Which makes it ok imho.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Religion without an afterlife, though. Which makes it ok imho.

You are easily pleased.

[hoopla]

Didn&#39;t Orwell, suggest that it was the idea of an afterlife that screwed over the w/c. I don&#39;t know what else the notion of God gives us, except morality and a few impressive buildings.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Didn&#39;t Orwell, suggest that it was the idea of an afterlife that screwed over the w/c.

Orwell is vastly over-rated; it was he, after all, who pictured the working class as animals, and the capitalists as human beings.

[hoopla]

Bretty, if Marx and Wittgenstein share similar concepts of "use", then how do they differ. And how can you advance Marx&#39;s ideas with these contradictions?
:blink:
:D

[hoopla]

Bretty, did you read Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger). Can you shed any light on it (at all, though the main problem I see it fitting it in with the rest of his work).