Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Wittgenstein - "On Certainty"

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:50:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm currently reading Wittgenstein's book, "On Certainty". Here are some of my thoughts on it.

Wittgenstein admitted his theory is largely just a pragmatic one. There's nothing particularly convincing about it and I was a bit disappointed. He had very good thought experiments but could have brought them to much better conclusions. For example, he notes how largely popularity enters our epistemic reasoning. You are certain that this is your hand but what if a room full of people told you no it is not your hand? You would either be the only rational person in a room full of madmen or a madman in a room full of rational people. Now suppose (and this is now a thought Wittgenstein didn't make) that you were the only person on earth. How certain can you be that your understanding of logic is correct? Well clearly only as certain as you know you can trust yourself. But how can you test your own understanding when you have no one to compare it to? You will probably not be certain of it. However, now when we have a multitude of humans who all share the same intuition, we say I must be right because everyone else shares the same intuition. If someone came up to you and told you you were crazy to believe bachelors were unmarried, how would you respond? You'd probably think him a little crazy himself. But what if no matter what arguments you made they seemed absurd to him and to make no sense. He'd obviously have a different understanding of logic than you but you'd still think him crazy. However, now suppose there were 10 more like this man, or 100 or that you are in the minority in your belief? Now what? You cannot make sense to them and they cannot make sense to you but they are just as sure as you. How then could you justify certainty in the belief that all bachelors are unmarried? It seems crazy to think a bachelor can be married, but if the majority thought the opposite, how could you not be skeptical of your understanding of the terms or logic? It's clearly a case of differing intuitions.

Now very likely such a circumstance will never occur but it does lead to the realization that our support for our level of certainty is popular opinion. Thus all certainty commits the ad populam fallacy. We believe things because every one else believes them. The amount of people who share your belief is used as support for your belief. This is clearly justified but still allows skepticism. So much of what Wittgenstein said could have gone down this line. He basically screamed we only have certainty based upon popular belief but never addressed that problem.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can't read "On Certainty" in isolation, it only makes sense in the context of philosophical investigations - that's where he does the real work.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:19:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:15:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You can't read "On Certainty" in isolation, it only makes sense in the context of philosophical investigations - that's where he does the real work.

Didn't know that, though I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding because of it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:53:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:19:14 PM, phantom wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:15:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You can't read "On Certainty" in isolation, it only makes sense in the context of philosophical investigations - that's where he does the real work.

Didn't know that, though I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding because of it.

Wittgenstein didn't even write it, he left some of his notes at a guy's house right before he died and the guy put them together into a book. It reads like notes rather than a book because that's what it is.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:53:03 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:19:14 PM, phantom wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:15:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You can't read "On Certainty" in isolation, it only makes sense in the context of philosophical investigations - that's where he does the real work.

Didn't know that, though I'm not sure what I'm misunderstanding because of it.

Wittgenstein didn't even write it, he left some of his notes at a guy's house right before he died and the guy put them together into a book. It reads like notes rather than a book because that's what it is.

Investigations or On Certainty? Because On Certainty reads very similar to Tracatus Logico Philosophicus but I always thought both works were written kind of note-like.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:24:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:15:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You can't read "On Certainty" in isolation, it only makes sense in the context of philosophical investigations - that's where he does the real work.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 12:53:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:50:35 PM, phantom wrote:
I'm currently reading Wittgenstein's book, "On Certainty". Here are some of my thoughts on it.

The Fool: Ahem I would not be the fool if I simply went around and agreed about something because allot of people also Believe or agree. For it is by the opposite.
For I would rather be the Galileo or Socrates onto death. then the Copernican Coward.

The Fool: There is two types of certainty that I think are being conflated here.

One is that Evaluative sense. That is Feeling Certain Which more in line with Feeling confidence, which is an emotion which varies in magnitude As all emotions do, For different things for different people(Subjective meaning)

And Logical/rational/objective. Certain. As In 1. Which is synonymous with complete.
100/100 Which is a hundred percent. 100% {By Convention} But that is not what makes it certain is the fact that it can be simplified to 1.
It could be anything/anything. As Long as its complete.

You could not even know what probability was if you didn"t REALLY know what certain was. And I don't mean what the Term is used for.

For Uncertainty (from UNDER Certainly could only be Recognized in relation(ratio-) to Certainty.) The lack of something is not a thing in itself but is only conceivable in relation to another. Complete line

A Problem, is lack of something;
Its missing something. An insufficient condition. A hole. As in "there is A hole in that story. aka Its incomplete. AKa its Problematic. But this can only be in relation what What know is whole and complete. For what is Not Does not exist.

You Only Know that this Line lack something.

-----------------------------

In relation(In ratio-) to this Line

-------------------------------------------------------------

But If all you have ever seen is one of them your whole life or you never had the memory of the last one, to compare. Then there would only be One type of line. Either way they would both be complete.

Probability is just a splicing of PROBLEM and ABILITY. An ability is 1(thing.)
AN=1 (particular)
a=1 (particular)

That is where we get 80/100 . IS A probability, It's LESS THEN 1. Less than complete.

the problem is the Gap. or missing part.

A solution is a complete, whole

Thus To SOLVE A PROBLEM. or To Find a SOLUTION. (something that will solve it)

TO MAKE SENSE. Take particulars and FUSE THEM TO ONE. A SENSE, 1 SENSE.

A RE-SOLUTION.

A SOLUTE(This is Before Chemistry Not the other way around) Chemistry get it terms from this.

Straight from the hill.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:13:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/28/2013 10:24:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:15:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
You can't read "On Certainty" in isolation, it only makes sense in the context of philosophical investigations - that's where he does the real work.

So enlighten me on how I've misrepresented Wittgenstein (or whatever mistake I've made) please.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)