[xenophanes]

Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

> His severe disciplinary methods (often involving corporal punishment, not unusual at the time)—as well as a general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad—led to a long series of bitter disagreements with some of his students' parents, and eventually culminated in April 1926 in the collapse of an eleven-year-old boy whom Wittgenstein had struck on the head.[29] The boy's father attempted to have Wittgenstein arrested, and despite being cleared of misconduct, he resigned his position and returned to Vienna, feeling that he had failed as a school teacher.

But Wittgenstein was a much worse philosopher. He wrote, for example, confusing/obscure attacks on the value of philosophy itself. Not having any philosophical problems one is interested in or finds fruitful is completely understandable. And of course a person in that situation won't make any useful contributions to solving philosophical problems. The weird thing is why he's considered a philosopher, let alone a good one, by anyone.

[wynand]

> Wittgenstein was a terrible person who hit children, hard, on the head:

That old bugbear - horrible as he might have been in person, his philosophy is distinct from this side of him. We might as well insinuate that Feynmann's work is worthless because he was a womanizer.

> Not having any philosophical problems one is interested in or finds fruitful is completely understandable

How is reasoning about the problems of philosophy itself not an interesting philosophical problem? You are entitled to your own opinion, but when you slate someone who was considered by other big philosophers as a giant, you need to make a stronger point than that.

[xenophanes]

Whether "reasoning about the problems of philosophy" is interesting depends on what you think they are, and whether you manage to come up with any useful answers.

What sort of stronger point do you want? I have an explanation of what Wittgenstein was (a person without philosophical problems) which accounts for all evidence of Wittgenstein known to me. I think it can account for everything you know about Wittgenstein too, if you think about it.

Did you want me to pick several examples -- which you can then accuse of being cherry picked -- and show how it fits? And I should do this in addition to offering my general explanation, even though you've offered neither an explanation of Witt nor brought up any examples for or against mine?

[Confusion]

All of which has nothing to do with the value of the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations. Your arguments are ad hominem and circumstantial.

[xenophanes]

I didn't say his character was relevant to his philosophy. I do think it's notable. Just like, say, Bertrand Russel's attitude to nuclear disarmament was notable. Is it relevant to whether his philosophy is true? Of course not. But should we forget about it and never mention it? No again.

As to Tractatus, if you want to discuss it more can you give a quote from the book that you consider to have value? Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

[hnhg]

I also heard that Bertrand Russell exhorted the post-war US and UK governments to launch pre-emptive strikes on the USSR before they got nuclear weapons. It makes for quite a contrast with his later pacifist stance.

[joecode]

"There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical."

[wynand]

> Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

That burden is on you, since you made the original assertion.

[xenophanes]

You are expecting me to cite the lack of something? How?

[wynand]

That doesn't let you off the hook.

You could say about anything "show me one place where x has value". In such a position, you'd always be able to dispute any point raised.

If you really believe that there is nothing of value in the Tractatus, then you should give a short summary of what you think it is about and why you don't think it has any value.

With such a summary, it's possible to have a debate, since your assertions can be challenged.

[xenophanes]

Do you think it has value? What value?

Why are you refusing to make a substantive comment? Given your refusal, why should I make a second one?

Yes, debating who should go first is stupid. So why are you doing it? (I am doing it, now, b/c I am curious why you take this approach.)

[rms]

I give you a pass on ad hominem in this case because it's not a logical fallacy, it's appropriate.

Ad hominem is not automatically a logical fallacy. I think it's important to note that there was something seriously off about Wittgeinstein's character.

[hnhg]

I don't like how this has been downvoted. It feels like people are disagreeing with the poster's point by giving him or her downvotes. That's not the point of the voting system, I'd say.

rms - though I see what you're saying, in this case I disagree with the statement because much of Wittgenstein's work concerned logic and I don't feel the negative aspects of his character affected the quality of it.

[rms]

(it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with a posters point by downvoting or upvoting. If it wouldn't ruin some of the site's simplicity it would make sense to have a 4 way arrow for agree/disagree and good/bad, but the system we have works well enough)

Yes, his character didn't impact his philosophical work, at least not for the purposes of us evaluating the text. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with people like him being listed on a list of great/influential people. Maybe his character flaw is enough to necessitate an asterisk next to his name on lists like this.

I would compare Wittgenstein's legacy to Fritz Haber -- a great man, inarguably greater than Wittgenstein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber However, the same scientific discovery of his that averted a Malthusian catastrophe also led to Haber becoming the "father of chemical warfare."