Jump to content

Talk:Logical atomism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 21: Line 21:


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. [[User:Erudecorp|Erudecorp]] [[User_Talk:Erudecorp|?]] [[Special:Contributions/Erudecorp|*]] 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
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. [[User:Erudecorp|Erudecorp]] [[User_Talk:Erudecorp|?]] [[Special:Contributions/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.--[[Special:Contributions/201.230.99.167|201.230.99.167]] ([[User talk:201.230.99.167|talk]]) 08:30, 10 January 2010 (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.--'''''[[User:Andersmusician|<font size="1" color="green">Andersmusician</font>]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Andersmusician|<font size="1" color="red">NO</font>]]''''' 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)--[[Special:Contributions/201.230.99.167|201.230.99.167]] ([[User talk:201.230.99.167|talk]]) 08:30, 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)--'''''[[User:Andersmusician|<font size="1" color="green">Andersmusician</font>]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Andersmusician|<font size="1" color="red">NO</font>]]''''' 08:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:32, 10 January 2010

WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Language / Analytic Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of language
Taskforce icon
Analytic philosophy

Expansion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Literally nonsensical.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]