Talk:Logical atomism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 

Expansion[edit]

I expanded some of the article using mainly the excellent German Wikipedia article on Logical Atomism. Obviously the article here still needs a great lot of more work. 84.203.181.35 (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, especially including the tidying up of the syntax in sentences such as this one:

"Russell believed a special kind of relationship to have to postulate that guarantees that a subject views of reality can have."

I can't even understand that well enough to revise it.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ill delete it. It looks wierd. 86.41.109.62 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Literally nonsensical.[edit]

Quote: "For Wittgenstein, metaphysics & ethics were literally nonsensical."

Literally? What's figuratively nonsensical? I almost deleted the word, but then, I have seen the phrase 'literally nonsensical' many times. Perhaps it has a specialized meaning, or perhaps it's a rote, undigested cliche. But it seems distractingly superfluous and careless. Erudecorp ? * 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For Wittgenstein, ethics was completely absurd because it was a topic that is strictely motivated by human emotions, emotions towards certain tradition the person has been learning since child, thus not by reason.--Andersmusician NO 08:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
and methaphysics, as it is read from the Ancient Greece books, authors didn't applied a correct use of the language on their asumptions of the universe and higher planes. (Although methaphysics can probably be assessed from mathematics and probability)--Andersmusician NO 08:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This is ridicoulous. Wittgenstein didn't think ethics for example were nonsensical, he thought they were ineffable, i.e. not possible to be put into propositions. The goal of the TLP is to establish what can be said, and what must be shown: for Wittgenstein, ethics, religion and æstethics are intervowen in an attempt to define the boundaries of the world and one's view on this world (cf. TLP 6.43: "If good or bad willing changes the world, it can only change the limits of the world, not the facts; not the things that can be expressed in language. [...]The world of the happy is quite another than that of the unhappy."). However, that doesn't mean that it is nonsense, rather, that it is not able to be decomposed into Sachverhalten. Anybody who thinks Wittgenstein disregarded the "mystical", in my view, relies all too heavily on the logical-positivistic reception of his work, not on the primary sources - indeed, the Geheime Tagebücher are full of references to this "mystical", and the last parts of the TLP are dedicated to finding a place for it (cf. TLP 6.4312: "The temporal immortality of the human soul, that is to say, its eternal survival after death, is not only in no way guaranteed, but this assumption in the first place will not do for us what we always tried to make it do. Is a riddle solved by the fact that I survive for ever? Is this eternal life not as enigmatic as our present one? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time. (It is not problems of natural science which have to be solved.)"). I would advocate changing it to "ineffable" or something similar. Wittgendegger (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole section is a mess, there are, no doubt, many differences between Russell and Wittgenstein but this article is about logical atomism not the two mens differing conceptions of the task of philosophy. It also seems to suggest that although the book espoused most of Russel's logical atomism, Wittgenstein thought Russell misunderstood the book because it differed so fundamentaly from Russel's position. If anything is deserving of the title "literal nonsense" this is it. The whole "task of philosophy" stuff should go, it is important in understanding the two philosophers but irrelevant to the understanding of their differing versions of logical atomism. I am also unsure about the tractatus being W's own version of logical atomism, the book contains W's version, it is not only this though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.133.180 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)