Finding Stuff
American Politics (3) Analytic Philosophy (6) announcement (13) Antonin Scalia (1) audio (5) Bertrand Russell (1) Bill Maher (1) brain chemicals (1) Christmas (2) Colonial Williamsburg (1) common space scores (1) composition (40) conference (1) Dennis Coyle (1) dessert (2) Dick Morris (1) Dualism (1) elections (1) e-mail discussion (62) faculty senate (1) family resemblance (1) fashion (2) Father Jocelyn (2) free will (1) Godzilla (3) gospels (1) hair (12) Hilton Head (1) identity politics (2) Igloo (1) image (31) Iraq (1) Jesus (1) Jocelyn (3) John Austin (2) John McEnroe (1) Kolshak (1) Language (1) language games (1) Law & Ideology (41) Lectures (2) Legal Theory (35) Liar's Paradox (1) Lies (1) Marriage (1) mathematics (1) Me (17) MIssouri (1) moral philosophy (1) Mothers Day (1) my family (2) necklace (1) Obama (1) Oliver Wendell Holmes (3) oral tradition (1) Originalism (4) Paul Horwich (1) Pedagogy (1) pedagogy (1) Philosophy of Intelligence (8) Philosophy of Love (2) Philosophy of Math (1) Physicalism (1) Piero Sraffa (1) Pittsburgh Penguins (1) Political Philosophy (1) politicology (8) polls (1) pragmatism (1) presidency (1) Presidential Campaign (1) Quantitative Ideology Models (26) Quantitative Methods (28) question (1) realism (2) Religion (3) Republicans (1) Robert Dahl (1) Robert DiClerico (1) Rolling Stones (1) Ronald Dworkin (4) sampling (1) scholarship (2) science (1) Segal & Spaeth (18) sense/reference (1) sociological jurisprudence (1) Star Trek (1) stats (1) Supreme Court (7) Supreme Court (1) Tennis (1) The Club (8) The Flexible Constitution (6) Tractatus (3) Transporter (1) Upcoming Projects (1) video (10) wealth (1) weird expression (1) Wittgenstein (22)
This area does not yet contain any content.
This area does not yet contain any content.
This area does not yet contain any content.
« The Age of Intoleration is Upon Us | Main | First Three Substantive Course Topics are Up »
Monday
Jan042016

Was Wittgenstein Right (Horwich)?

... pretty good stuff here.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/was-wittgenstein-right/?_r=1

But here is my only complaint. Characterizing Wittgenstein's negative attitudes about the field of philosophy, Horwich writes:

" There are no startling discoveries to be made ... 'from the armchair' through some blend of intuition, pure reason and conceptual analysis."

But was Wittgenstein himself doing philosophy? Because, if he was and he was right -- both of which seem true to me -- then philosophy did not fail; it merely ended. In fact, if Wittgenstein is right, philosophy was a success. It just took history's best thinker to put things we already knew in the right arrangement and the right light. This is an important distinction because it means that philosophy is far from worthless. It is simply a bunch of "thinking exercises," which, if contemplated properly, ends with the fly leaving the bottle. That is, it makes you smarter. I want to say: it was Wittgenstein who allowed us all to graduate.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>