Advanced Search

Would we be correct to say that, in a sense, Wittgenstein(2) eliminated the need

Would we be correct to say that, in a sense, Wittgenstein(2) eliminated the need for the Kantian distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal? I'm thinking more about Remarks on the Foundations on Mathematics and On Certainty and less about the Investigations ... More precisely, if all that can be said can be said in natural language alone--therefore in the context of a language game--then aren't we unable to think/speak of a reality "behind" or "outside" of the games? If we can't express "empirical facts" otherwise but within language games, then aren't we unavoidably committed to the rules of one particular game or another? (If we attempt to deconstruct the way we "play" with phrases such as "the real world" or "the noumenal", can we go further than Nietzsche's allegorical evolution and mystification of the real world in Twilight of Idols ?) Is the noumenal nothing more than something we artificially construct by logical opposition to our mundane experience of knowing, thinking,...

The sort of remark made in the second paragraph is one I see and hear a lot. But, frankly, I just don't get it. In particular, why is it supposed to follow that I can't use language to speak of a reality that is independent of language? I can use language to speak of all kinds of things that seem to have nothing very much to do with language: Flowers, rocks, supernovas, non-recursive sets, and so on and so forth. Obviously, everything that can be said has to be said inlanguage. But that is so mind-numbingly obvious that I can't see howanything of consequence could follow from it: It's "analytic" in pretty much the "bachelors are unmarried men" sense. And even if one assumes, more strongly, that anything that could be thought at all could be said, nothing in this vicinity follows.

Hi. I was wondering if Jean-Paul Sartre's view on Existentialism have any

Hi. I was wondering if Jean-Paul Sartre's view on Existentialism have any relevance for today's philosophers? Looking forward to an answer. Thanks, Magnus Sweden

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in interest among Anglo-American philosophers in such philosophers such as Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jean-Paul Sartre. In a recent book, Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-Knowledge, Richard Moran draws on Sartre's Being and Nothingness in order to give an account of first-person authority. I think that there is much in Being and Nothingness that could illuminate such questions as the nature of human freedom and the nature of our knowledge of other minds. Sartre's writings deserve further consideration from Anglo-American philosophers.

Concerning Berkeley's view that there are no such thing as external objects,

Concerning Berkeley's view that there are no such thing as external objects, just our perception of such ideas: What would he say about space?

Are Walter Kaufmann's translations of Nietzsche still considered the best? They

Are Walter Kaufmann's translations of Nietzsche still considered the best? They have been the standard since the 1950s but to me they seem stiff, clunky, and lacking in the humor or literary panache that the originals are said to possess. Sometimes the word use is so odd that it makes me wonder about Kaufmann's grasp of English. Unfortunately I do not read German, so I can't tell. Is Nietzsche really like this? And are there more recent worthy translations?

There are newer translations of many of Nietzsche's works in the series, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Hackett has also published fine translations of The Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols and may well be planning to publish further translations.

In 1907 William James gave his Lowell Lectures on Pragmatism at Harvard and

In 1907 William James gave his Lowell Lectures on Pragmatism at Harvard and later at Columbia. I believe that Pragmatism was intended by WJ to complement his book Varieties of Religious Experience . 2007 will be the Centennial of Pragmatism. Will this event be observed by philosophers? Universities? Or by the literate public -- which is the audience William James often tried to reach. Bill DeLoach The University of Memphis

I can't imagine there won't be conferences and the like, what with the resurgence of American pragmatism over the last couple decades. You might want to contact Harvard and ask them if they have any plans. If not, perhaps your letter would suggest to them that they should make some.

My question is a little bit technical. As you know, from Heidegger to

My question is a little bit technical. As you know, from Heidegger to Structuralism, there is always a theme of an "iron cage". In other words, we are always bound by language, structure, or something else. This word "iron cage" was as far as I find used by Weber first. But, I wonder, who is the first western philosopher who used such an idea of being bounded by a surrounding system. For example, can we count Hegel as an "iron cage" philosopher as for him no one can go beyond the volksgeist ? Kind Regards, Nyouri Oezturk

Well, you'd have to include Kant, who argues that our knowledge is bounded by our perceptual and cognitive structures.

While reading Nichomachean Ethics and Politics, I found myself

While reading Nichomachean Ethics and Politics , I found myself agreeing with Aristotle far more than I did with Plato when I read The Republic . Can you convince me otherwise? How would Plato have critiqued Aristotle's works?

I would first encourage you to see what is common to what the two philosophers say. Each one thinks that eudaimonia (happiness or flourishing) is what makes a human life good, and each one thinks that the best way to win that goal is to be virtuous. Each also thinks that being virtuous requires acting in accordance with reason. But there are differences, and there is nothing wrong in responding to these with a preference for one account in favor of the other!

Pages