Why is Wittgenstein overrated?

Do most philosophers suck. Which is good?


money talks and bull walks. the wit of Wittgenstein contains this: a proposition can express a fact by virtue of sharing with it a common structure or “logical form.” This logical form, however, precisely because it is what makes “picturing” possible, cannot itself be pictured. It follows both that logic is inexpressible and that there are—pace Frege and Russell—no logical facts or logical truths. Logical form has to be shown rather than stated, and, though some languages and methods of symbolism might reveal their structure more perspicuously than others, there is no symbolism capable of representing its own structure.


Is Wittgenstein overrated? By whom? Please provide valid supporting evidence. Do most philosophers "suck"?" Only for those who lack the education and intelligence to comprehend them. Which is good? "Good" is a relative term. What may be good to me may not be good to you. For Western Philosophy, I suggest that you start out with basic principles. Here: https://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html

Freethinking Liberal

First show you think Wittgenstein is overrated.


Over-rating = over-valuing, over-esteeming, and even as a psychological function of idolatry. Rather than criticizing Wittgenstein (W), will endeavor to give a few overviews re his life. Born into a very wealthy yet psychologically driven fin de siecle Catholic-Jewish family, Ludwig in good measure overcame the pressures that saw three of the very talented five Wittgenstein brothers self-murder. W was intensely aware and focused, and very honorable to what he experienced as right. His career encompassed many activities, including comprising two complete and somewhat antithetical philosophical systems (a rarity among philosophers). He also demonstrated extreme valor and courage during WWI, and great personal initiative in contacting first Frege and then Russell. He was an excellent independent architect, and well-trained engineer, and, in terms of learning at fundamental-basic levels, a gardener and a grade school teacher, and someone who for a time lived alone in a hut, that he built, in Norway. This penchant for learning "from the ground up" may reflect his mother's familial relationship with her nephew Friedrich Hayek, as well as a strong character who sought basic meaning even in labor, rather than moving directly into upper management, as his father preferred his five sons do. Imho this is the key to W: a) his was a strong character; b) this strength developed as agonism, or a response to how the Kantian notion antinomy may be resolved. Russell and Frege also worked with this paradoxical quality, and imo W's major project was of the search for a fundamental single logical axiom, upon which logic could be derived and built. Imo Godel's work proved this to be an impossibility (for any axiomized system sufficient to do e.g. multiplication, etc.); thus, Frege, W, and logical positivism were examples of complete system-building which were shown to be fundamentally non-doable. Along the way of this impossible-to-realize search, including both "Tractatus" and "Philosophic Investigations," W offers many profound insights about "the philosophy of psychology" (published as "Bemerkungen uber die Philosophie der Psychologie," aka "Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology"). Combined with his own genuinely modest and profoundly self-aware self-assessment (~ "the only Jewish geniuses are (the) Jewish saints; even the greatest (secular) Jewish thinker is ('only') talented," and a profound mysticism (a devotee of Tolstoy and fan of Dostoevsky), imho W was working at the level of high gamma wave, and integration of outer waking consciousness with waking subconscious as reflecting inner Child of Light or soul-field imo points to the basis of his typology of "fast" (high gamma/integrated light awareness, and "slow" thinking(s). For example, in the first volume of "Remarks," paragraph 249, W states "If someone says he has had an image of a shining gold ball, we shall understand him; but not if he says that the ball was hollow. But in a dream a man might see a ball and *know* it was hollow." This type of "knowing" correlates with e.g. the prophetic tradition and Kabbalah, in that Light is understood and interpreted by the movement of the soul from higher to more outer waking consciousness, a "dream (or even vision) come true." In W's pre-"Tractatus" work (published as "Notes on Logic"), a clear focus on "picture" as "reality" indicates a fundamental problem (which later W refutes)--namely, that "picture" = "logically axiomized system;" in terms of Incompleteness, the picture does not fully present itself--is necessarily incomplete re some of its truth-claims. Imho this is a function of Plato's "appearances" gathered/encountered at the dianoia level, in which light has been geometrized unto a "gulf fixed" between the living Light/Abraham's bosom, and the outer reductively geometrized light-energy--the level which Godel's Incompleteness theorems describe. A similar penchant occurs in the latter part of "PI," in that W moves from logical atomism as adequate to explain "picture," to psychology as reflecitng "picture." This imo is moving the goal of finding a single fundamental axiom, from physis to psyche, and imo W is moving beyond Kant's phenomena-Noumenal dualism into Schopenhauer's and especially Husserl's phenomenology (as psychology of philosophy; W admired S, as did Nietzsche, but W later perceived the "shallowness" of S, even as Hegel and S criticized Kant as not going far enough toward realizing noumenal (or platonic Noesis)), and imho W in good part adopted a Husserlian-like perspective toward data (both in "Tractatus," e.g. 6.54, "He must surmount these propostions; then he sees the world rightly," and in later writings (with the latter's emphasis on psychology of philosophy)). In sum, W opined that his work has the most (or only true) value if read in the Light of God (paraphrase). As a concluding unscientific postscript, would note re "Leonie's" comment, that at times W could also be "tyrannical" (the Popper episode, and the unfortunate abuse of children, e.g. striking a boy until the boy had to be carried, semi-conscious, to the school nurse, and twisting a girl's ears until they bled; ironically, the abuse of girl students in elementary maths was considered more heinous, as girls were not particularly considered "creatures of maths.") Imho, W was repeating the same "authoritarian" drive for "perfecting others," which his father Karl also demonstrated. And, it is a nice correlation in the intellectual history of the time that W's father commissioned works by Rodin, who counseled young Rainer Maria Rilke, who in turn was gifted by W with monies; and Peter Sloterdijk, who has imho well taken up the uncompleted project of early Heidegger, has recently published "You Must Change Your Life," an accessible look into Sloterdijk's philosophy, with its title being the first advice Rodin gave Rilke. Rilke also corresponded with Mahler; Mahler and his friend Brahms often gave concerts at W's father's palace. Brahms' quality of "Sehnsucht," which quality Hegel noted as a key impetus toward the civilizing (rise of Spirit), was likely imparted to young W as he listened to the concerts, and certainly W's life's search for "Certainty" expresses the motif of Sehnsucht. As to which thinkers are "good," it is both a condition of personal honesty, insight, and interest, on the part of the thinker, and on the part of the active reader. Sloterdijk is good for what later Heidegger, and certainly W, found of import: the transcendence of Light as given via e.g. Brahms, Mahler, Rodin, Rilke, and Holderlin, or, in W's case, simply by grace--that "Jewish saintly" encounter with Light so notable in e.g. Rabbi Ezekiel. If one is interested in problematics, Popper is good; if one is moving from darkness to Light, Kierkegaard's "Knight of Faith," and K's little book "Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing;" and Buber, Levinas, and, more heuristically, Rosenzweig ("The Star of Redemption") are likewise. "Know thyself" and then find those who think similarly is worthwhile. Bergson, Mark Prophet ("Understanding Yourself"), Aivanhov ("A Philosophy of Universality"), Vladimir Solovyov ("Lectures on Divine Humanity"), Berdyaev, and of course later Nietzsche for what Maslow later developed as self-actualization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs Also, Quee Nelson's "The Slightest Philosophy" and Edith Stein's writings on compassion provide a more rounded or fulfilling perspective. The good thinking that reflects and glorifies God, and that serves one's fellow people--is best--this "philosophy" or mission statement is both J. S. Bach's and Wittgenstein's.


HE WAS ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS. MUCH better than that tyrannicall poorly-spoken Heidegger. And that lying immoral hate-ball Russell, whom he crushed repeatedly anyway