![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
I'm going to add the economist Sraffa to the list of influences because (i) Wittgenstein recognizes him as such in the PI and (ii) Wittgenstein corresponded with Sraffa in addition to regularly talking with him and Ramsey at Cambridge.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelSCollier ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 December 2006
The mere aquantance of Witt. with Kant isn't enought to count him as an influence, or at least an influence signifigant enough to be mentioned. Moreover, if Wittgenstein got his Kant through Schopenhauer, then Schopenhauer should be counted as the inluence just as I should count Kripke as the influence on me were I to read Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. I found it surprising that someone would count Kant as an influence and I think a better defence is in order. JoelSCollier 03:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe William James should be listed as an influence, and perhaps something short written about Wittgenstein's reading of James -- from 1912 when he picks up James's Varieties of Religious Experience to its influence in his later ideas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmistler ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 February 2006
Whether there is an inverse relationship or not between one's interest in substance and one's interest in personal life is neither here nor there. The articles in Wikipedia always have a section on "Life" or "Life and Times." With Ludwig especially, the issue of his sexual orientation is significant because of the unusually strong response from his hysterical executors (Ms. Anscombe, Rush Rhees) when W. W. Bartley III published his book on Wittgenstein's philosophy, which contained a small section (including photographs) on W's sexual orientation which is, by now, well documented. Admittedly, this area should comprise a small part of the article, but it should certainly be mentioned. Do you object to the section on "Einstein" concerning his marriage? NYCSEAN
I think this article ties the life and work of LW too tightly, so the reader has to go through the detailed discussion of LW's philosophy to get a grip of LW's life. I think it would be a welcome improvement to edit the header and give the basics of W's birth and death, schooling and positions (Linz, Berlin, Cambridge), and then discuss LW's philosophy as much as you please in the article's body.
In the section "The Philosophical Investigations", it is said that Wittgenstein's "later philosophy" broke radically from the philosophy of the Tractatus in its view of the task of philosophy. This is a claim that I remember being made by published commentators that I read as an undergraduate student, 30 years ago, and I can't see it now any more than I could then. But this section makes the claim seem particularly hard to sustain; it is ironic that the particular example concerning The Good and The Beautiful are cited, as Wittgenstein refers specifically to this example in Tractatus 4.003, where he says "Most propositions and questions that have been written about philosophical matters are not false, but senseless.".
I'm reluctant to edit, as I haven't studied Wittgenstein (or any kind of western philosophy) for a very long time, and only turned up this page after stumbling on an online Tractatus earlier today. And anyway, I'd *really* appreciate an attempt by a proponent of the earlier/later school of Wittgenstein criticism to make clearer in which ways the later Wittgenstein repudiated (rather than revised) the philosophy of the Tractatus. MrDemeanour 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What evidence is there of a significant influence on Wittgenstein from Kant? According to his biographers, he read very little historical philosophy. Transcendentalism? Doesn't sound right. Banno 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any working knowledge of philosophy and/or transcendentalism? (or Kant or.... Wittgenstein?)It seems rather unlkley given your comment. Edit: though the use of Transcendentalism can be confused for tangently related things. "Transcendentality" is more clear, but there shouldn't be any confusion on what is Kantian. Ernham 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"He took much of the framework of the Tractatus from Kant through Schopenhauer, whom he had read and admired…." David Pears, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Penguin Books, page 40. Lestrade ( talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Anyone know where the photograph of W. went? I'm assuming that it got turfed because of a copyright issue, but I don't see anything in the page history.
The next thing I wonder about is if there even ARE any photographs of Wittgenstein that are fair-use. I know certain websites have gotten into trouble over using certain photos, so I'm not sure what we should do.
Anyone? Enigma00 05:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again folks, we are out of a photograph. Can this be fixed? It seems the problem had to do with copyright, but it seems to me the only issue was because the person who uploaded the photo did not give a fair-use rationale. If we do this we should be okay to use the one we had. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Enigma00 ( talk) 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If I read the FAR correctly, the short the lead was one important criticism.
In my not so humble opinion, the info box is too long, and infoboxes on biographies are an abomination anyway. Why not get rid of the infobox and add the information not yet covered as prose to the lead?
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, no. Sorry, but I suggest you read the lead section guidelines (what seems worse is that it appears to have been shorter while an FA. People just don't get lead sections...) Richard001 ( talk) 09:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We lost the picture? Can someone upload it again (or get it undeleted) and add a fair use rationale this time? We obviously can't take a fresh one of him so it will have to be either fair use or PD. Richard001 ( talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm attempting to resolve this; please give me some time to work on it. Most likely I'll write a FUR then list the image on IfD to invite discussion. — xDanielx T/ C\ R 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous. A great number of images of Wittgenstein are going to be public domain - certainly pictures of him when he was young ought to be. So far as I can tell, our image use policies are entirely designed to make it hard to have decent images. john k ( talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And NFCC 10A is completely ridiculous. One of the whole reasons for fair use is that it's not always possible to attribute things, and determine if they're under copyright or not. john k ( talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and jumped through all the necessary hoops to make sure the photo is acceptable. Its size has been reduced in order to meet the fair use criteria, but the link to the off-site fully-sized version is on the image's description page.
FranksValli (
talk) 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1990 a historical account from Prof Eric Bywaters mentions that Wittgenstein, apart from working as a mortuary porter in Guy's hospital, also assisted a team of researchers in Newcastle who were investigating crush syndrome. Bywaters comments on his skill in slicing lung from autopsied patients for pathological inspection! PMC 1679829 JFW | T@lk 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
'Pragmatics of Human Communication, a Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas and Don D. Jackson is a good reference point for this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.137.58 ( talk) 08:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please could everyone remember to sign their posts here with ~~~~? This helps other editors see who said what and when, and also helps with archiving (this page is getting too long, and posts which aren't datestamped don't get archived).
Also, please start new threads at the bottom of the page - not at the top or intersppersed between existing threads. Again, this helps other editors keep track of discussion. Thanks!
DuncanHill (
talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have archived 1314 threads which have shewn no activity after December 2006 to
Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 3. A further 6 threads have shewn no activity since August 2007 (six months ago). If no-one objects I propose archiving these in say a week's time. This is to reduce the size of this page, and keep "live" threads more visible, which should help with the discussions. Please do comment if you have any thoughts on this, thanks.
DuncanHill (
talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added the appropriate {{unsigned}} template wherever I could work out that it belonged. I have also moved a couple of threads which had been started at the top of the page to their correct position by date of commencement. In doing this, I have not added or removed any part of anyone's text, and I have not in any way altered the order of postings within any thread. This should help with future archiving, as well as maintaining the continuity of the page. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and standardized the archives. They all follow the "Archive #" name, and have a template that makes navigation easier. The discussions that were moved off to their own pages have been incorporated into this, to make it easier to find and follow. Hope this looks good! -- Kesh ( talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
I'm going to add the economist Sraffa to the list of influences because (i) Wittgenstein recognizes him as such in the PI and (ii) Wittgenstein corresponded with Sraffa in addition to regularly talking with him and Ramsey at Cambridge.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelSCollier ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 December 2006
The mere aquantance of Witt. with Kant isn't enought to count him as an influence, or at least an influence signifigant enough to be mentioned. Moreover, if Wittgenstein got his Kant through Schopenhauer, then Schopenhauer should be counted as the inluence just as I should count Kripke as the influence on me were I to read Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. I found it surprising that someone would count Kant as an influence and I think a better defence is in order. JoelSCollier 03:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe William James should be listed as an influence, and perhaps something short written about Wittgenstein's reading of James -- from 1912 when he picks up James's Varieties of Religious Experience to its influence in his later ideas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmistler ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 February 2006
Whether there is an inverse relationship or not between one's interest in substance and one's interest in personal life is neither here nor there. The articles in Wikipedia always have a section on "Life" or "Life and Times." With Ludwig especially, the issue of his sexual orientation is significant because of the unusually strong response from his hysterical executors (Ms. Anscombe, Rush Rhees) when W. W. Bartley III published his book on Wittgenstein's philosophy, which contained a small section (including photographs) on W's sexual orientation which is, by now, well documented. Admittedly, this area should comprise a small part of the article, but it should certainly be mentioned. Do you object to the section on "Einstein" concerning his marriage? NYCSEAN
I think this article ties the life and work of LW too tightly, so the reader has to go through the detailed discussion of LW's philosophy to get a grip of LW's life. I think it would be a welcome improvement to edit the header and give the basics of W's birth and death, schooling and positions (Linz, Berlin, Cambridge), and then discuss LW's philosophy as much as you please in the article's body.
In the section "The Philosophical Investigations", it is said that Wittgenstein's "later philosophy" broke radically from the philosophy of the Tractatus in its view of the task of philosophy. This is a claim that I remember being made by published commentators that I read as an undergraduate student, 30 years ago, and I can't see it now any more than I could then. But this section makes the claim seem particularly hard to sustain; it is ironic that the particular example concerning The Good and The Beautiful are cited, as Wittgenstein refers specifically to this example in Tractatus 4.003, where he says "Most propositions and questions that have been written about philosophical matters are not false, but senseless.".
I'm reluctant to edit, as I haven't studied Wittgenstein (or any kind of western philosophy) for a very long time, and only turned up this page after stumbling on an online Tractatus earlier today. And anyway, I'd *really* appreciate an attempt by a proponent of the earlier/later school of Wittgenstein criticism to make clearer in which ways the later Wittgenstein repudiated (rather than revised) the philosophy of the Tractatus. MrDemeanour 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What evidence is there of a significant influence on Wittgenstein from Kant? According to his biographers, he read very little historical philosophy. Transcendentalism? Doesn't sound right. Banno 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any working knowledge of philosophy and/or transcendentalism? (or Kant or.... Wittgenstein?)It seems rather unlkley given your comment. Edit: though the use of Transcendentalism can be confused for tangently related things. "Transcendentality" is more clear, but there shouldn't be any confusion on what is Kantian. Ernham 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"He took much of the framework of the Tractatus from Kant through Schopenhauer, whom he had read and admired…." David Pears, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Penguin Books, page 40. Lestrade ( talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Anyone know where the photograph of W. went? I'm assuming that it got turfed because of a copyright issue, but I don't see anything in the page history.
The next thing I wonder about is if there even ARE any photographs of Wittgenstein that are fair-use. I know certain websites have gotten into trouble over using certain photos, so I'm not sure what we should do.
Anyone? Enigma00 05:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again folks, we are out of a photograph. Can this be fixed? It seems the problem had to do with copyright, but it seems to me the only issue was because the person who uploaded the photo did not give a fair-use rationale. If we do this we should be okay to use the one we had. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. Enigma00 ( talk) 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If I read the FAR correctly, the short the lead was one important criticism.
In my not so humble opinion, the info box is too long, and infoboxes on biographies are an abomination anyway. Why not get rid of the infobox and add the information not yet covered as prose to the lead?
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, no. Sorry, but I suggest you read the lead section guidelines (what seems worse is that it appears to have been shorter while an FA. People just don't get lead sections...) Richard001 ( talk) 09:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We lost the picture? Can someone upload it again (or get it undeleted) and add a fair use rationale this time? We obviously can't take a fresh one of him so it will have to be either fair use or PD. Richard001 ( talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm attempting to resolve this; please give me some time to work on it. Most likely I'll write a FUR then list the image on IfD to invite discussion. — xDanielx T/ C\ R 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous. A great number of images of Wittgenstein are going to be public domain - certainly pictures of him when he was young ought to be. So far as I can tell, our image use policies are entirely designed to make it hard to have decent images. john k ( talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
And NFCC 10A is completely ridiculous. One of the whole reasons for fair use is that it's not always possible to attribute things, and determine if they're under copyright or not. john k ( talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and jumped through all the necessary hoops to make sure the photo is acceptable. Its size has been reduced in order to meet the fair use criteria, but the link to the off-site fully-sized version is on the image's description page.
FranksValli (
talk) 06:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1990 a historical account from Prof Eric Bywaters mentions that Wittgenstein, apart from working as a mortuary porter in Guy's hospital, also assisted a team of researchers in Newcastle who were investigating crush syndrome. Bywaters comments on his skill in slicing lung from autopsied patients for pathological inspection! PMC 1679829 JFW | T@lk 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
'Pragmatics of Human Communication, a Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas and Don D. Jackson is a good reference point for this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.137.58 ( talk) 08:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please could everyone remember to sign their posts here with ~~~~? This helps other editors see who said what and when, and also helps with archiving (this page is getting too long, and posts which aren't datestamped don't get archived).
Also, please start new threads at the bottom of the page - not at the top or intersppersed between existing threads. Again, this helps other editors keep track of discussion. Thanks!
DuncanHill (
talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have archived 1314 threads which have shewn no activity after December 2006 to
Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 3. A further 6 threads have shewn no activity since August 2007 (six months ago). If no-one objects I propose archiving these in say a week's time. This is to reduce the size of this page, and keep "live" threads more visible, which should help with the discussions. Please do comment if you have any thoughts on this, thanks.
DuncanHill (
talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added the appropriate {{unsigned}} template wherever I could work out that it belonged. I have also moved a couple of threads which had been started at the top of the page to their correct position by date of commencement. In doing this, I have not added or removed any part of anyone's text, and I have not in any way altered the order of postings within any thread. This should help with future archiving, as well as maintaining the continuity of the page. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and standardized the archives. They all follow the "Archive #" name, and have a template that makes navigation easier. The discussions that were moved off to their own pages have been incorporated into this, to make it easier to find and follow. Hope this looks good! -- Kesh ( talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)