As with anyone, Wittgenstein could be right about some things and wrong about others. My using one of his ideas does not mean that I'm invoking his entire philosophy.
Saying the recaller recalls does not create two recallings, it just refers to one recalling twice. That's inefficient use of language, but certainly not a problem.
The Cogito is flawed because you can have thoughts without thinkers.
As with anyone, Wittgenstein could be right about some things and wrong about others. My using one of his ideas does not mean that I'm invoking his entire philosophy.
Saying the recaller recalls does not create two recallings, it just refers to one recalling twice. That's inefficient use of language, but certainly not a problem.
The Cogito is flawed because you can have thoughts without thinkers.
Firstly, Wittgenstein, to my knowledge, was not wrong about anything.
Secondly, it certainly is a problem, such as you cannot have thoughts without thinkers. For if you hold that thoughts are without thinkers, you are saying thoughts are distinct from thinkers, the thought being without the thinker and the thinker without the thought. But surely you cannot believe this!
the thinker is the thought. thought is the thinker and tricks itself into thinking it is more significant than thought itself.
the thinker is the thought.
Better, but if you hold that thinker and thought are identical, then it would also follow that agent and action are one... surely you cannot mean this either sir!
stick to the thinker and the thought, absolutely no point chasing the same tail under a new disguise.
but surely you don't mean to say that the thinker is identical to the thought sir?
the thinker is the thought, psychologically, fact or no ?
I guess what I'm trying to say is take for example, oh, I don't know.... a cutter and the action of cutting. It is considered obvious to all that an agent such as a cutter cannot be identical with the action of cutting that he or she performs. By the same token, then, the thinker and the act of thinking cannot be identical... no?
The Cogito requires it to be incoceivable that thoughts can exist without thinkers. I can imagine it, therefore it's not inconceivable, therefore the Cogito is flawed. (Naturally, it only takes one person to be able to imagine something for it to be conceivable, just as it only takes one person to break the 4 minute mile for the mile to be runnable in 4 minutes.) That's hardly controversial.
Wittgenstein completely changed his mind about language between the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations. Since the two accounts of language are incompatible he must have been wrong in one of his accounts.
"Wittgenstein completely changed his mind"
He should have changed his name. It's hard to spell.
The Cogito requires it to be incoceivable that thoughts can exist without thinkers. I can imagine it, therefore it's not inconceivable, therefore the Cogito is flawed. (Naturally, it only takes one person to be able to imagine something for it to be conceivable, just as it only takes one person to break the 4 minute mile for the mile to be runnable in 4 minutes.) That's hardly controversial.
Wittgenstein completely changed his mind about language between the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations. Since the two accounts of language are incompatible he must have been wrong in one of his accounts.
Firstly, Wittgenstein did not change his mind between the two, but this doesn't beg the question - instead of going on and on about Wittgenstein, if we assume, for your sake, he did change, it doesn't change the validity of your dubious thought. To end the matter, I would just refer you to the essays of, oh, I don't know, John Searle and Paul Horwich (among others).
You (and others) are correct when you say that it only takes one person to be able to imagine something for it to be conceivable.
However, let's look at it from that angle: If, as you hold, a thought exists without a thinker, then where would that thought be located? You might say, well in the place... well what place? Well in the place where a thought is being performed. But then you have two thoughts, I guess I'm trying to say, that which exists in the place intrinsically, internally, by Nature - and that which exists in the action of thinking, the thought itself. So therefore a thought cannot exist obviously in the place where a thought was performed, neither in a place where a thought will be performed, but also as we can now conclude, neither in a place in which a thought is presently being performed, due to the prior conclusion.
So how can a thought be imagined when the place for it cannot be found?
You might, you will, say, well, you are imagining it right now!
But didn't you say that everything else than the world of forms is an illusion??
Wittgenstein didn't change his mind? He didn't change his name either. I bet if he had Given Birth, he wouldn't have even changed the baby's diaper. He could probably have stepped into the same river twice if he had put his unchanged mind to it.
This is why I just talk crap on the forums instead, takes a lot less effort, same result.
Only if by Ph.d you mean "phenomenal duck"
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Yes and no.