Wittgenstein/Philosophical Remarks - Revision history

Unknown user: /* Summary */

2025-05-01T20:25:15Z

Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 1 May 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Ludwig Wittgenstein's ''Philosophical Remarks'' are compiled from writings primarily from 1929-1930, representing a transitional phase between his early and later philosophy.		Ludwig Wittgenstein's ''Philosophical Remarks'' are compiled from writings primarily from 1929-1930, representing a transitional phase between his early and later philosophy.

			''Philosophical Remarks'' documents Wittgenstein's break from his earlier work, stressing the importance of the actual use and rules ('grammar') of language and applying this new perspective extensively to the philosophy of mathematics, while also exploring perception and intentionality.

			It is a collection of explorations rather than a finished, systematic treatise.

	==Chapters I-IV: General Shift and Critique of Tractatus==		==Chapters I-IV: General Shift and Critique of Tractatus==

Unknown user at 20:24, 1 May 2025

2025-05-01T20:24:26Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Ludwig Wittgenstein, ''Philosophical Remarks''
 ==Sections 1-50==
@@ Line 249: / Line 282: @@
 }}
-==Flags==
+=Flags=
 {{BookFlag}}

Admin: Admin moved page Philosophical Remarks to Wittgenstein/Philosophical Remarks

2018-12-04T01:00:31Z

Admin moved page Philosophical Remarks to Wittgenstein/Philosophical Remarks

← Older revision

Revision as of 01:00, 4 December 2018

Admin at 01:00, 4 December 2018

2018-12-04T01:00:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:00, 4 December 2018
Line 252:		Line 252:

	{{BookFlag}}		{{BookFlag}}

			[[Category:Reading]]
			[[Category:Philosophy]]
			[[Category:Wittgenstein]]

Admin: /* Section 31 */

2018-11-27T06:33:16Z

Section 31

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 27 November 2018
Line 30:		Line 30:

	{{Quote\|		{{Quote\|
	The manipulation of words is the manipulation of reality."		The manipulation of words is the manipulation of reality.

	- Phillip K. Dick		- Phillip K. Dick

Admin: /* Sections 1-50 */

2018-11-27T06:32:58Z

Sections 1-50

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Sections 1-50==
 {{Quote|
@@ Line 10: / Line 12: @@
 - Section 31, p. 69
 }}
 {{Quote|

Admin: /* Section 100-150 */

2017-07-03T23:23:27Z

Section 100-150

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 3 July 2017
Line 106:		Line 106:

	{{Quote\|		{{Quote\|
	The situation would be something like this: we have an infinitely long row of trees, and so as to inspect them, I make a path beside them. All right, the path must be endless, But if it is endless, that means precisely that you can't walk to the end of it. That is, it does not put me in a position to survey the row. (Ex hypothesi not.)		The situation would be something like this: we have an infinitely long row of trees, and so as to inspect them, I make a path beside them. All right, the path must be endless, But if it is endless, that means precisely that you can't walk to the end of it. That is, it does not put me in a position to survey the row. (''Ex hypothesi not''.)

	That is to say, the endless path doesn't have an end "infinitely far away," it has ''no'' end.		That is to say, the endless path doesn't have an end "infinitely far away," it has ''no'' end.
Line 114:		Line 114:

	{{Quote\|		{{Quote\|
	If it is objected that "if I run through the number series I either eventually come to the number with the required property, or I never do," we need only reply that it makes no sense to say that you ''eventually'' come to the number, and ''just as little'' that you ''never'' do. Certainly it is correct to say 101 is or is not the number in question. But you can't ~~tlak~~ about ''all'' numbers, because there's no such thing as ''all'' numbers.		If it is objected that "if I run through the number series I either eventually come to the number with the required property, or I never do," we need only reply that it makes no sense to say that you ''eventually'' come to the number, and ''just as little'' that you ''never'' do. Certainly it is correct to say 101 is or is not the number in question. But you can't talk about ''all'' numbers, because there's no such thing as ''all'' numbers.

	- Section 124, p. 147		- Section 124, p. 147
Line 124:		Line 124:
	No.		No.

	"Can God know all the places of the expansion of Pi?" would have been a good question for the ~~schoolmen~~ to ask. In all such cases, the answer runs, "The question is senseless."		"Can God know all the places of the expansion of Pi?" would have been a good question for the schoolteacher to ask. In all such cases, the answer runs, "The question is senseless."

	- Section 138, p. 156		- Section 138, p. 156
Line 134:		Line 134:
	Experience as experience of the facts gives me the finite; the objects contain the infinite...		Experience as experience of the facts gives me the finite; the objects contain the infinite...

	Where the nonsense starts is with our habit of thinking of a large number as closer to infinity than a small one.		''Where the nonsense starts is with our habit of thinking of a large number as closer to infinity than a small one.''

	- Section 138, p. 157		- Section 138, p. 157

Admin: /* Section 100-150 */

2017-01-24T05:39:21Z

Section 100-150

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:39, 24 January 2017
Line 166:		Line 166:

	{{Quote\|		{{Quote\|
	What's more, it all hangs on the syntax of reality and possibility. m = 2n contains the ''possibility'' of correlating any number with another, but doesn't correlate ''all'' numbers with others.		What's more, it all hangs on the syntax of reality and possibility. <math>m = 2n</math> contains the ''possibility'' of correlating any number with another, but doesn't correlate ''all'' numbers with others.

	- Section 141, p. 161		- Section 141, p. 161

Admin: /* Section 100-150 */

2017-01-24T05:35:42Z

Section 100-150

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 24 January 2017
Line 89:		Line 89:
	{{Quote\|		{{Quote\|
	Think of such "objects" as: a flash of lightning, the simultaneous occurrence of 2 events, the point at which a line cuts a circle, etc.: the three circles in the visual field are an example for all of these cases.		Think of such "objects" as: a flash of lightning, the simultaneous occurrence of 2 events, the point at which a line cuts a circle, etc.: the three circles in the visual field are an example for all of these cases.

	~~[[Image:Venn.gif\|200px]]~~

	- Section 115, p. 136		- Section 115, p. 136

Admin: /* Section 100-150 */

2017-01-24T05:35:24Z

Section 100-150

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 24 January 2017
Line 90:		Line 90:
	Think of such "objects" as: a flash of lightning, the simultaneous occurrence of 2 events, the point at which a line cuts a circle, etc.: the three circles in the visual field are an example for all of these cases.		Think of such "objects" as: a flash of lightning, the simultaneous occurrence of 2 events, the point at which a line cuts a circle, etc.: the three circles in the visual field are an example for all of these cases.

	[[Image:Venn.~~png~~\|200px]]		[[Image:Venn.gif\|200px]]

	- Section 115, p. 136		- Section 115, p. 136