Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

Influences/influenced redux

I recently overhauled the influences/influenced part of the infobox. I've narrowed down Influences to:

Schopenhauer, Frege, Russell, Moore, Sraffa, James, Freud, Ramsey, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Kant, Hertz, Boltzmann, Loos, Kraus, Weininger, Goethe, Spengler

Most of these are referenced in H.L. Finch's The Vision of Wittgenstein (Vega, 2003). The others are obvious. As for Influenced, I've expanded it somewhat to include:

Analytic Philosophy, Vienna Circle, Logical Positivism, Ordinary Language Philosophy, Russell, Anscombe, Malcom, Rhees, Ayer, Ryle, Hacker, Habermas, Putnam, Rorty, Kripke, McDowell, Davidson, Dummett, Dennett, Wright

Any thoughts on these inclusions? Grunge6910 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never been certain that Boltzmann should be listed as an influence; beyond being a recipient of the adulation of the very young Wittgenstein, Boltzmann had no clear impact on Wittgenstein's life, and there are even fewer signs of his impact on Wittgenstein's philosophy. As for influences; A.J. Ayer is a minor philosopher, and is easily subsumed under logical positivism; Malcolm and Rhees are primarily noteworthy as acolytes of W (in opposition, to, say, Anscombe); do they deserve mentioning? As for the current philosophers... I suppose this is the difficult part. Why Dennett and Rorty, but not Dreyfus or Sluga? I'd also replace Dummett with Searle, and think about adding Bourdieu. The Rhymesmith (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also cut Hacker - given that space is a premium, I think it best to exclude anyone who is not a major philosopher, anyone who has not been significantly influenced by Wittgenstein, and also anyone who is primarily known for exegesis of Wittgenstein. I think you've noticed the Wittgenstein template which I created; there's a section there for philosophers who have devoted a substantial amount of time to interpreting Wittgenstein. I also think that if we do retain, say, Dummett, we may as well include Hintikka and Strawson. I also think Augustine should be included as an influence (granting that 'influence' in W's case worked somewhat differently to normal. The Rhymesmith (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The new W. template is very helpful indeed. Augustine is perhaps worth re-instating. I have read that Wittgenstein did read the Confessions. Boltzmann appeared on a list Wittgenstein drew up of writers who influenced him. (I can provide a citation if you'd like.) I think that's about as cut-and-dry as that gets.

Agree on Ayer subsumed into positivism. Hacker I merely retained from previous edits. I agree that he's non-notable. Rhees is probably the same. Malcom, on the other hand, is probably besides Anscombe the most frequently cited W. acolyte. For that alone, perhaps, he's worth keeping. Bourdieu should be included, as he's a major thinker who's clearly expressed his influence and comes from a different tradition that bears mentioning (much like Habermas who I've included). I think Rorty is worth mentioning because of W.'s influence on neopragmatism and because of connections between his own work and pragmatism (a very interesting area of scholarship by the way). I'm not sure why you're opposed to Dummett; he's a major contemporary thinker and has done significant work on Wittgenstein. Searle is worth mentioning. Dreyfus I simply don't know as well; I'll leave that up to those who know him better. Sluga I don't think is as significant a thinker. Grunge6910 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

W. is reacting to what he sees as Augustine's picture of language in PI, and he quotes Augustine in enough other works that an influence is not too audacious to draw. I know the list you're talking about with Boltzmann, and have also read Wilson's Hertz, Boltzmann, and Wittgenstein Reconsidered (can't find a link); my point is merely that if we listed every influence and influenced on the basis of self-reporting without some other kind of winnowing criterion we'd never be able to stop. I don't oppose Rorty. (I also agree with your comment about connections between W. and pragmatism; that was the first thing I noticed when I came across W.) The criteria I actually seem to be using are:

• Notable for own philosophical contributions distinct from exegesis (of anyone, not just W.)
• Has acknowledged Wittgenstein as an influence
• Influence of Wittgenstein visible in works.

Dummett certainly fulfulls the first and second criteria, but the source you supplied suggests that the primary period of his Wittgensteinianism was before his major academic work, and it's very difficult to find traces of Wittgenstein in what he has published. Frankly, there's probably no analytic philosopher of Dummett's repute anywhere who has not read and been influenced by Wittgenstein to some degree, and if we have Dummett, we'd either have to include Hintikka (similar to Dummett, particularly in this) and a horde of other modern analytics, or consign ourselves to being inevitably arbitrary. I cited Sluga inasmuch as Sluga is probably Dummett's most influential student, is clearly more influenced by Wittgenstein. Sluga, on the other hand, fails my point one, inasmuch as much of what he does is exegesis of others. (Dreyfus I believe should be included because Wittgenstein has profoundly influenced D's exegesis of Heidegger, and because D's exegesis of Heidegger is sufficiently his own and has had enough of an impact on cognitive science and AI that it stands distinct from mere commentary as a work in its own right.) The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the way the sections look now, with the possible exception of the addition of Godel. I've rarely if ever seen Wittgenstein's name linked with his. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Source requests

The article references Hamann, pp. 15–16, no other details. I've looked up the one I thought it was, but entering the text in search doesn't bring it up. Does anyone know what this refers to? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the last sentence of the lead is OR/SYN.

Despite these differences, similarities between the early and later periods include a conception of philosophy as a kind of therapy, a concern for ethical and religious themes, and a literary style often described as poetic.

Could someone post here what Barrett says on p. 138 that allows us to make that claim (that similarities between the early and later periods etc)? Do either of the sources describe the literary style (the early and later) as poetic? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am really not sure why you're so concerned with this claim. What Barrett says on that page and others is that Wittgenstein holds the same conception of value in his early and later periods. That concept of value is expressed in his ethical and religious thinking, as Barrett and others have made clear. He said infamously himself that he saw "every problem from a religious point of view" (Malcom, Recollections, pp. 79). This aspect of Wittgenstein's thought has been emphasized a lot in recent scholarship. Another RS on this issue is the IEP:

Wittgenstein had a lifelong interest in religion and claimed to see every problem from a religious point of view, but never committed himself to any formal religion. His various remarks on ethics also suggest a particular point of view, and Wittgenstein often spoke of ethics and religion together. This point of view or attitude can be seen in the four main themes that run through Wittgenstein’s writings on ethics and religion: goodness, value or meaning are not to be found in the world; living the right way involves acceptance of or agreement with the world, or life, or God’s will, or fate; one who lives this way will see the world as a miracle; there is no answer to the problem of life–the solution is the disappearance of the problem.

As for Wittgenstein's poetic style, I didn't mean to provide Barrett for that claim. The best source on that claim is Perloff, Marjorie. Wittgenstein's Ladder: Poetic Language and the Strangeness of the Ordinary. University of Chicago Press, 1999. Cf. the introduction in which she speaks of Wittgenstein's "poetry of ideas". Also Gibson, John and Wolfgang Huemer (eds.). The Literary Wittgenstein. Psychology Press, 2004, pp. 2. "...it has often been pointed out that the fascination of Wittgenstein's works lies to a considerable degree in their literary quality; like few other philosophers he succeeded in creating a harmony between the literary form and philosophical contents of his texts."

I think this clears up both claims.Grunge6910 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. It wasn't that I was particularly objecting to it; it's just that I'm going through the article trying to make sure that everything's sourced, as there's a fair bit of OR in it. Many thanks for the references. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Morons on the loose again in Wikipedia

Yeah I know, so what else is new? This time someone -- I don't have the time or desire to find out who -- dug deep into the version history of the Wittgenstein article. They found a 1901 group photograph of little Adolf in a classroom together with other pupils. An extreme-fringe author, Kimberley Cornish, author of the extreme-fringe (and much derided) book The Jew of Linz, uploaded a cropped version of the photograph to the English Wikipedia and labeled two pupils in the picture "Adolf Hitler" and "Ludwig Wittgenstein". The fact that Wittgenstein started to attend the Realschule in Linz only in 1903 did not bother Cornish, and now the editor re-introducing this garbage into the Wittgenstein article is equally untroubled by mere chronology. The moron editor thought to be on the safe side by captioning the picture with a "no consensus" disclaimer. I suppose next we will have to include a painting of men and dinosaurs walking side by side into the Dinosaurs article, with a cautionary note that there is "no consensus" on their contemporaneity. I would ask what motivates a person to do this, but I fear that peering inside their skull would only expose a crock of shite... which stinketh much.--82.113.121.55 (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)