Chapter 6 and 7 Wittgenstein Quiz

Chapter 6+7 Quiz

1. 1.As I understand them, atomic propositions are propositions that are, like atoms, reduced to their smallest form. They cannot be further analyzed or broken down. The second half of the question is alluding to the idea that atomic propositions make up everything; they “construct” words and symbols, and in order to fully understand those words and symbols one must first understand and comprehend the building blocks.

2. The idea of something being in two places at once or of two particles being in the same place at the same time is what Ramsey refers to as impossibility. To him, this idea is concerned with physical science. He contradicts Wittgenstein’s view of it being related to the needs and concerns of logic. These ideas are illogical when stated, but can be attempted to be explained through physics.

3. Up until he wrote his third publication, Wittgenstein’s view of language (as described in Tractacus) was that the inexpressible should not be expressed. Now, under the guidance of Ramsey, he in a way rewrote his entire philosophy. He no longer thought of the one logical form (which Ramsey rejected) but of how language an logic can be underscored in philosophical propositions (something he did not believe in before).

4.This is Wittgenstein’s own writing, I believe. He is saying that instead of meticulously stating how to solve a philosophical problem or dilemma, one must describe its nature completely. Description is a much more beautiful word than explanation. It implies a holistic approach to a philosophical issue—one that, through language, attempts to bring about complete understanding.


5. Uebersicht! Hurrah! Technically, uebersicht means oversight, but the book had a different definition that I interpreted as “reaching for clarity.” Monk talks about Goethe, and his morphological approach to science. Wittgenstein did the same thing with language (Goethe was very influential to him). I think this means that he tried to make language beautiful while having it maintain its logical undertones.

Chapter 4 and 5 Wittgenstein Quiz

1 1. This quote, from proposition 3.143, is alluding to Wittgenstein’s idea that while words may physically be the same (have the same sign), they may have different meanings (or symbols). Facts become muddled because of writing. When something is written down, it can confuse the meaning of a proposition more than when it is spoken.

2. 2. Philosophical confusion arises out of the misunderstanding of logical language. As stated above, words and symbols differ, though people see them many times as being synonymous. The signs, in a way, can disguise the symbols and their true meanings. The example that is used is “John is green” versus “John is Green.” The “is” in these sentences have the same sign but different symbols. The first describes John and the second identifies him.

3. 3. Tautologies are sentences/statements/propositions that are always true because they cannot not be true. They oppose contradictions. The book uses the tautology that it is either raining or not raining. This sentence is true; it is senseless in the fact that it is obvious, but it is not nonsense because it is an essential element of the philosophical logical process.

4. 4. Logic, ethics, aesthetics, and religion all belong to the transcendental realm of philosophy because they go beyond understanding. They cannot be put into words. Writing about these things would be like writing about something that cannot be written about. I like to think that propositions are not strong enough to hold the words that would compromise logic, ethics, aesthetics, and religion.

5. 5. Wittgenstein thought philosophy was confusing, muddled, and had many aspects that could not even be expressed. He wanted to clean up the problems of philosophy. The scientific method is very exact and structured. Wittgenstein would never have supported the idea of a philosophical scientific method because he didn’t believe that philosophy is a science. It is a way of life.

Kant's Ethics

I was really intrigued by Kant's ethics. Most of the time, when confronted with an ethical dilemma, I ask myself, "What should I do?" The reading, however, states that Kant does not focus on this question, but rather the one that discusses what a person should do in the face of temptations, like a man tempted to commit adultery. But what if you are not tempted. What if you are merely dumbfounded as to what to do? What if you are torn in half and do not know which way to go, are not tempted in a certain direction? Surely there are choices like that as well.

I really liked the section about the reasons we think about ethics. Wolff says that they are 1) to discover an absolutely certain proof of the moral principles that we are already convinced are true. 2) we don't know what is right. 3) the search for the good life. I am a bit confused about what the good life really means. The book states that the good life "combines virtue and happiness in true human fulfillment," but what is that really? I want to live a good life, but to do that do you not have to be able to solve hard cases and be happy with your decision? Because I feel I would be unhappy with any hard case solution, because a hard case is hard because the solution is not perfect. How can life then be truly good? It confuses me.