Random quote
Philosophy is the entirety of all primitive
propositions that are supposed to be true without evidence from the various
sciences.
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) in a lecture to the Moral Science Club in
Cambridge, 29 November 1912).
If so, almost none of what I have written here is philosophy.
5 comments:
Let's suppose, just suppose, Ludwig was wrong. It has been claimed science and physics were wrong, insofar as propositions and suppositions made were thought ludicrous, until proofs emerged, which when rigorously tested, showed those props and supps might be correct, afterall. Under those conditions, LW may well have been right, given what he knew, when first he knew it. Knowledge of truths is fact dependent. I don't know when it was shown water to be composed of hydrogen and oxygen. When hydrolysis became a fact, we knew for sure. Folks who need oxygen enrichment get it---it is portable now.
Another rumination: My brother and I have shared ideas and observations re: philosophy for a few years (maybe ten). He is older than me and studied the discipline at his alma mater. For some time, he asserted we KNOW nothing. For at least that long, I could not grasp what he meant. Then, the light bulb lit up. His point has to do with continuity of knowledge. Over time and experiences, things we know are either resilient; have continuity, or, they aren't, and don't. It took awhile, but, I finally got what he was getting at. Things are not always stationary. Especially knowledge.
That’s a possible interpretation of Wittgenstein’s words and a good interpretation. However, I had something different in my mind when I chose this quotation. When LW said these words, his idea was that all philosophy is logic, and in view of this, I have interpreted “propositions” as “logical propositions”. To my mind the quote says: Philosophy is the entirety of all primitive logical propositions that are supposed to be true without evidence from the various sciences. However, much what is seen a philosophy by other philosophers is not based on logical propositions, if it is based on propositions at all. How about ethics, social and political philosophy, philosophy of language, etc,? LW’s idea of philosophy then was too limited.
I agree. I always thought: How can we call something knowledge, so consider true, if it is later refuted and replaced by new knowledge, and so isn’t knowledge anymore? For apparently it was not true. And how about this new knowledge? Didn’t Montaigne already say “What do I know?” (Que sais-je?)
Thank you, Henk. You are a barometer, for me, and, I am sure, for others. Peut etre, deutrement, je ne c'est qua pas? This is much of what I have learned from mon cher frere. Oui, Je parle un peut de Francais, aussi. It has been many years. Comme ci, comme ca, non?
Post a Comment