Did I misunderstood Wittgenstein or he is actually super-overrated, useless to study?

[Rasheed]

I decided to read a summary of Wittgenstein's work—he is considered by certain groups of people to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time and the best philosopher of the 20th century. My impression after reading his main insights and ideas is that he had certain useful insights into the philosophy of language, but overall, it is not at all as huge of a deal as most people make it out to be.

Fundamentally, Wittgenstein's main premise is extremely wrong, for which I cannot even consider him a philosopher in the first place. Essentially, he claimed that all philosophical problems arise due to sloppy use of a language; therefore, they must be dissolved (shown to be non-sensical) through Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy—his therapy boils down to analyzing a sentence, concluding how words are taken from "ordinary language,"  then used in a sloppy manner, creating metaphysical, non-sensical questions that cannot be answered because they are non-sensical.

To give an example, let's say one goes to Wittgenstein and asks him, "How to live a great life?" —what would so-called "the best philosopher of the 20th century" answer? The answer would be that this is a nonsensical question arising due to sloppy use of language. Wittgenstein would then start analyzing the question, showing how it is impossible to figure out what one means by terms such as "great", "life" and so on and so forth. What will be the end result? Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy leads one nowhere, and obviously, one asking the question of "how to live a great life" will end up with no answer but some academic twaddle; therefore, all one can do is go on YouTube and start watching the latest sports highlights and 10-second short videos.

Therefore, my question is: Did I misunderstand Wittgenstein, or is he actually super-overrated, making his philosophical insights useless to contemplate and study? I don't even understand how his work even got popular, truth be told. Maybe I am wrong...

[Leo Gura]

All Western philosophers are over-rated.

But Wittgenstein is deeper than you suggest. It's not all just purely a language game for him. He recognized deeper metaphysical aspects of reality, he just thought they were too profound to put into words. Sorta like how Zen or Daoism likes to say that the true Dao cannot be spoken. Which is kind of a silly position to take, but there's some important truth in that perspective.

TRUTH is actually very simple to speak: YOU ARE GOD, and reality is your Infinite Dream. Ta-daaaa!

Edited June 29, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Rasheed]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

All Western philosophers are overrated.

But Wittgenstein is deeper than you suggest. It's not all just a language game for him. He recognized deeper metaphysical aspects of reality; he just thought they were too profound to put into words. Sort of like how Zen or Daoism likes to say that the true Dao cannot be spoken. Which is kind of a silly position to take, but there's some important truth in that perspective.

The truth is actually very simple to speak: YOU ARE God, and reality is your Infinite Dream. Ta-daaaa!

I agree with your point—after reading Wittgenstein, I had a sense that he had deeper insights; essentially, that's why he finished Tractatus with: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Even though Wittgenstein might have had deeper insights, this doesn't mean most of his followers and fellow analytical philosophers, "logical positivists and atomists," did so as well. Therefore, telling an individual who has no deeper insight that "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is equal to telling a person who has no meditation experience that meditation is useless because "truth is already the case...; it is equal to Osho saying that all philosophical questions must be dropped before they are answered. Therefore, it won't be unreasonable to conclude that Wittgenstein unconsciously and unintentionally did a disservice to his followers.

Even though Wittgenstein has some great insights, his overall premise still doesn't survive scrutiny if one pushes it enough because, essentially, when it comes to Ethical questions or questions about how to live a great life (+ more other philosophically relevant questions), they simple cannot be boiled down to "the sloppy use of language", which displays how Wittgenstein's arrogant position of "having finished philosophy" after writing Tractatus was simply blasphemous.

In a nutshell, the best one can do is read Wittgenstein and sort the wheat from the chaff, realizing how Wittgenstein had deeper insights that he was unable to convey and actually, unfortunately, his philosophical method cannot help one in reaching. 

Overall, what do you think did Wittgenstein had a positive impact on Western philosophy? or unintentionally, it further put many philosophers who followed Wittgenstein in deeper unconsciousness?

Edited June 29, 2023 by Rasheed

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Rasheed said:

Therefore, telling an individual who has no deeper insight that "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is equal to telling a person who has no meditation experience that meditation is useless because "truth is already the case...; it is equal to Osho saying that all philosophical questions must be dropped before they are answered. Therefore, it won't be unreasonable to conclude that Wittgenstein unconsciously and unintentionally did a disservice to his followers.

Correct.

Although Wittgenstein is famously mysterious and obstruse. And that is what his most serious followers find most appealing about him.

If all you got from Wittgenstein was that it's all an empty word game, then you are not a serious student of Wittgenstein.

But certainly no one will Awaken through Wittgenstein's work. It is impossibly far from Awakening, so stop wasting your time.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Rasheed]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Correct.

Although Wittgenstein is famously mysterious and obstruse. And that is what his most serious followers find most appealing about him.

If all you got from Wittgenstein was that it's all an empty word game, then you are not a serious student of Wittgenstein.

But certainly no one will Awaken through Wittgenstein's work. It is impossibly far from Awakening, so stop wasting your time.

100%.

Thanks for help. I appreciate it.

[itsadistraction]

On 28/06/2023 at 11:13 AM, Rasheed said:

I decided to read a summary of Wittgenstein's work—he is considered by certain groups of people to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time and the best philosopher of the 20th century. My impression after reading his main insights and ideas is that he had certain useful insights into the philosophy of language, but overall, it is not at all as huge of a deal as most people make it out to be.

Fundamentally, Wittgenstein's main premise is extremely wrong, for which I cannot even consider him a philosopher in the first place. Essentially, he claimed that all philosophical problems arise due to sloppy use of a language; therefore, they must be dissolved (shown to be non-sensical) through Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy—his therapy boils down to analyzing a sentence, concluding how words are taken from "ordinary language,"  then used in a sloppy manner, creating metaphysical, non-sensical questions that cannot be answered because they are non-sensical.

To give an example, let's say one goes to Wittgenstein and asks him, "How to live a great life?" —what would so-called "the best philosopher of the 20th century" answer? The answer would be that this is a nonsensical question arising due to sloppy use of language. Wittgenstein would then start analyzing the question, showing how it is impossible to figure out what one means by terms such as "great", "life" and so on and so forth. What will be the end result? Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy leads one nowhere, and obviously, one asking the question of "how to live a great life" will end up with no answer but some academic twaddle; therefore, all one can do is go on YouTube and start watching the latest sports highlights and 10-second short videos.

Therefore, my question is: Did I misunderstand Wittgenstein, or is he actually super-overrated, making his philosophical insights useless to contemplate and study? I don't even understand how his work even got popular, truth be told. Maybe I am wrong...

Sounds pretty profound to me. You deconstructed all of language in a paragraph.

[Nilsi]

On 29.6.2023 at 7:23 AM, Leo Gura said:

All Western philosophers are over-rated.

Western philosophy is an entirely different game than Eastern philosophy.

On 29.6.2023 at 7:23 AM, Leo Gura said:

TRUTH is actually very simple to speak: YOU ARE GOD, and reality is your Infinite Dream. Ta-daaaa!

The point of Eastern philosophy is to guide you to this realization (roughly). 

The point of Western philosophy, ever since Plato, has been to take this Truth (roughly) as the starting point to further probe into reality and ask questions such as "how does one live a meaningful life?" "how does this or that thing work?"

Pretty much any canonical philosopher of the last 2000 years (at least intellectually) understands this Truth - which is why it would be redundant and passé to spend too much time on this point (which is all that Eastern philosophers ever do).

 

This attitude is what got us Michelangelo, the moon landing, human rights, etc. -- while the Easterners still ramble on about being more AWAKE than the next guy. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Nilsi

[Vibroverse]

Western philosophy, most most mostly, has no idea about the dimension of being which we might call the mystical. Trying to find the "right path" without understanding the compass of feeling and inner awareness, to be honest, is just absurd. 

 

[Nilsi]

3 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

Western philosophy, most most mostly, has no idea about the dimension of being which we might call the mystical. Trying to find the "right path" without understanding the compass of feeling and inner awareness, to be honest, is just absurd. 

 

I can't speak for Wittgenstein nor for some of the other Western philosophers (whom I strongly suspect have a very deep and authentic grounding in mysticism). I can speak for Friedrich Nietzsche though, because I have been extensively studying his thought for quite some time now.

It is very obvious to me that Nietzsche was at least as awake as any Eastern guru or philosopher (Krishnamurti, Aurobindo and the likes).

His whole project was based on the premise of Awakening and Absolute Truth. Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer (who was an astute scholar and practitioner of all the great Eastern esoteric traditions), but wanted to overcome the Nihilism, which took grip of Schopenhauer, as he immersed himself in mysticism and asceticism.

Nietzsche's conclusion is quite simple: reality may be absolutely empty and meaningless, but that itself is completely meaningless -- the strongest soul is he who looks into the void, but embraces and affirms Life nonetheless. The Übermensch who is able to create his own values and purpose.

 

People think reading some one-liners or watching a few YouTube videos (whiche of course were curated by clueless people) is sufficient to comprehend and comment on an intellect as profound as Nietzsche [Hegel, Wittgenstein, Jung, etc.]. lmao

Edited July 1, 2023 by Nilsi

[Rasheed]

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I can't speak for Wittgenstein nor for some of the other Western philosophers (whom I strongly suspect have a very deep and authentic grounding in mysticism). I can speak for Friedrich Nietzsche though, because I have been extensively studying his thought for quite some time now.

It is very obvious to me that Nietzsche was at least as awake as any Eastern guru or philosopher (Krishnamurti, Aurobindo and the likes).

His whole project was based on the premise of Awakening and Absolute Truth. Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer (who was an astute scholar and practitioner of all the great Eastern esoteric traditions), but wanted to overcome the Nihilism, which took grip of Schopenhauer, as he immersed himself in mysticism and asceticism.

Nietzsche's conclusion is quite simple: reality may be absolutely empty and meaningless, but that itself is completely meaningless -- the strongest soul is he who looks into the void, but embraces and affirms Life nonetheless. The Übermensch who is able to create his own values and purpose.

 

People think reading some one-liners or watching a few YouTube videos (whiche of course were curated by clueless people) is sufficient to comprehend and comment on an intellect as profound as Nietzsche [Hegel, Wittgenstein, Jung, etc.]. lmao

Why that is very interesting point you have made—I never thought about looking Nietzsche from this angle.

Truth be told, after watching lectures about him by college lecturers and reading books that summarized his ideas, conclusion I came out with that Nietzsche was stage Orange reacting to Stage Blue with nice stage Green ideas such as “There are no facts, only interpretations.”

You made a great point which nobody who lectures on Nietzsche or writes about him underscores. At least books which I have read and lectures I have listened to, do not talk about that…

[Vibroverse]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

I can't speak for Wittgenstein nor for some of the other Western philosophers (whom I strongly suspect have a very deep and authentic grounding in mysticism). I can speak for Friedrich Nietzsche though, because I have been extensively studying his thought for quite some time now.

It is very obvious to me that Nietzsche was at least as awake as any Eastern guru or philosopher (Krishnamurti, Aurobindo and the likes).

His whole project was based on the premise of Awakening and Absolute Truth. Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer (who was an astute scholar and practitioner of all the great Eastern esoteric traditions), but wanted to overcome the Nihilism, which took grip of Schopenhauer, as he immersed himself in mysticism and asceticism.

Nietzsche's conclusion is quite simple: reality may be absolutely empty and meaningless, but that itself is completely meaningless -- the strongest soul is he who looks into the void, but embraces and affirms Life nonetheless. The Übermensch who is able to create his own values and purpose.

 

People think reading some one-liners or watching a few YouTube videos (whiche of course were curated by clueless people) is sufficient to comprehend and comment on an intellect as profound as Nietzsche [Hegel, Wittgenstein, Jung, etc.]. lmao

Yeah, you're right, i sorta made an overgeneralization. Of course there are thinkers who have some awareness of the mystical dimensions of being in the western philosophical tradition, also. It is true, but most of those thinkers don't seem to understand the importance of feeling as some sort of a divine guidance. 

 We see such ideas more in the eastern philosophical tradition, even though they might have nuanced ways of explaining it. But almost no philosophers in the western tradition talk about, for instance, the importance of meditation and intuitive thinking, so to speak. 

The general trend is to talk of something called "reason" through which we are supposed to find the truth, but when you dive into that concept more, you begin to see that it is a pretty problematic concept, and noone actually knows what the heck they mean by that concept. 

 

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

[...] but most of those thinkers don't seem to understand the importance of feeling as some sort of a divine guidance. 

[...]

The general trend is to talk of something called "reason" through which we are supposed to find the truth, but when you dive into that concept more, you begin to see that it is a pretty problematic concept, and noone actually knows what the heck they mean by that concept. 

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, but it's mostly a cliché.

Ever since Romanticism and German Idealism, emotions and subjectivity are front and center in all Western philosophical discourse.

Nietzsche would of course go on to emphasize the importance of the instincts; Bergson's whole project was making intuition en vogue, etc.

 

People still stereotype the Western philosopher as being some autistic left brained geek like Aristotle, Descartes or Kant - which, of course, hasn't been true for over 200 years now.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Nilsi

[Vibroverse]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

I can't speak for Wittgenstein nor for some of the other Western philosophers (whom I strongly suspect have a very deep and authentic grounding in mysticism). I can speak for Friedrich Nietzsche though, because I have been extensively studying his thought for quite some time now.

It is very obvious to me that Nietzsche was at least as awake as any Eastern guru or philosopher (Krishnamurti, Aurobindo and the likes).

His whole project was based on the premise of Awakening and Absolute Truth. Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer (who was an astute scholar and practitioner of all the great Eastern esoteric traditions), but wanted to overcome the Nihilism, which took grip of Schopenhauer, as he immersed himself in mysticism and asceticism.

Nietzsche's conclusion is quite simple: reality may be absolutely empty and meaningless, but that itself is completely meaningless -- the strongest soul is he who looks into the void, but embraces and affirms Life nonetheless. The Übermensch who is able to create his own values and purpose.

 

People think reading some one-liners or watching a few YouTube videos (whiche of course were curated by clueless people) is sufficient to comprehend and comment on an intellect as profound as Nietzsche [Hegel, Wittgenstein, Jung, etc.]. lmao

And, sure, i'm in no way an expert on them, but i've studied all of them to some extent, and i also agree that those names such as hegel, jung, etc, are pretty important, and i think i've learned a few things from them. 

I mean, i also agree with you in that i also think that they have discovered the mystical dimensions of being, especially hegel and jung, amongst the names that you've mentioned. But i also, in some sense, think that they might not have been aware of what they have discovered. 

The sense that they give me is that, yes, they have discovered "this", but they have become so focused on expanding from "this" that is the ground that they don't even talk about it, because, perhaps, they don't even understand that they got it. 

 

[Vibroverse]

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, but it's mostly a cliché.

Ever since Romanticism and German Idealism, emotions and subjectivity are front and center in all Western philosophical discourse.

Nietzsche would of course go on to emphasize the importance of the instincts; Bergson's whole project was making intuition en vogue, etc.

 

People still stereotype the Western philosopher as being some autistic left brained geek like Aristotle, Descartes or Kant - which, of course, hasn't been true for over 200 years now.

Yeah, i agree with you, to some extent. But i don't think that thoughts of those schools that you've mentioned are the center of today's discourse. Of course, the focus on inner experiences and subjectivity has been increased pretty much especially after the german idealism and romanticism, especially through phenomenology and what we may call the postmodern thought. 

However, the focus on subjectivity and emotions are being taken into account merely as phenomenological analyses and the influence of culture on being, not necessarily in an awareness of deep spirituality where the deeper levels of thoughts, in the direction of mysticism. But, of course, this is a deep subject about which we need to talk in more depth for it to start making sense to us. 

And of course my criticism is cliche and shallow, because how deep can we get in a forum where we are communicating through a few paragraphs at most with each other. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Vibroverse

[Leo Gura]

Neitzsche was nowhere near Awake.

[Vibroverse]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, but it's mostly a cliché.

Ever since Romanticism and German Idealism, emotions and subjectivity are front and center in all Western philosophical discourse.

Nietzsche would of course go on to emphasize the importance of the instincts; Bergson's whole project was making intuition en vogue, etc.

 

People still stereotype the Western philosopher as being some autistic left brained geek like Aristotle, Descartes or Kant - which, of course, hasn't been true for over 200 years now.

And by the way, yeah, bergson is on a whole another level when compared to most other wellknown philosophers, and i might, perhaps, put whitehead in a similar category with bergson, in that sense. 

 

[Vibroverse]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Neitzsche was nowhere near Awake.

I see nietzsche as someone who can be a very important step in the process of awakening for some, in helping them understand that most everything you think you know have just been indoctrinations your society has brainwashed you with, and in understanding how society functions, as an entry level. 

And i think, as i understand and interpret it, schopenhauer was much more awake, in that sense, than nietzsche, and i think nietzsche misunderstood schopenhauer, and therefore buddhist thought, in that sense, and thought that it was a life denying thought, a life denying philosophy. 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Vibroverse

[Nilsi]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Neitzsche was nowhere near Awake.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but knowing you, I would assume you would call someone like Ken Wilber or Sri Aurobindo (or yourself) closer to "Awake" than Nietzsche - and I genuinely wonder what makes you think that?

[Nilsi]

19 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

[...] i think nietzsche misunderstood schopenhauer, and therefore buddhist thought, in that sense, and thought that it was a life denying thought, a life denying philosophy. 

Is it not? 

To Nietzsche life = growth, becoming, striving -- which Buddhist's simply brush off as Samsara.

Instead, Buddhism (if strictly adhered to) will turn you into a monk, meditating on the void - all day, all night. Nothing novel and grand can ever grow out of this sterility, which is what Nietzsche means with "life denying."

Edited July 1, 2023 by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I would assume you would call someone like Ken Wilber or Sri Aurobindo (or yourself) closer to "Awake" than Nietzsche - and I genuinely wonder what makes you think that?

Correct.

Is there even any evidence that Neitzsche has ever spoke the word "Awake"?