Wittgenstein quotes
Excerpt from Wittgenstein's Reader
What we are "tempted to say" in such a situation is not philosophy; it is the raw material of philosophy. For example, what a mathematician is inclined to say about the objectivity and truthfulness of mathematical facts is not the philosophy of mathematics, but what philosophy must diagnose and treat. 〔PU，§254〕
Philosophers diagnose and treat a problem; it is like diagnosing a disease. 〔PU，§255〕
Where did our expeditions get their importance? Because it seems to be just destroying all that is interesting, that is, all that is great and important. (It's like destroying all the buildings, leaving only a pile of rubble.) All we destroy is the paper house built on the foundation of language, so that the foundation of language is clean and open. 〔PU，§118〕
The fruit of philosophy is to reveal such and such utter nonsense, to reveal the lumps that our understanding has bumped into the boundaries of language. These lumps make us realize the value of revealing work. 〔PU，§119〕
What I want to teach is to transform the nonsense that has not been revealed into the nonsense that is obvious. 〔PU，§464〕
My purpose, of course, must be to say what people want to say here but can't say meaningfully. 〔C，§76〕
I sat in the garden with a philosopher: he said again and again, "I know it's a tree," while pointing to a tree near us. A third man came up and heard him say, and I said to the man who came, "This man is not neurotic: we are merely engaged in philosophy." ”〔C，§467〕
People are like demons who come back to the propositions over and over again[ such as " I know I have a pair of hands " ) , and I want to purge them from the philosophical language. 〔C，§31〕
So we wash away the sentences that don't lead us forward. 〔C，§33〕
What are your philosophical goals? - Point out the way out of the flycatcher bottle. 〔PU，§309〕
Philosophy is a tool that is used only against philosophers and philosophers in ourselves. [MS219, page 11]
Incurable diseases are the norm, not the exception. 〔LW Ⅰ，§110〕
Philosophy cannot interfere in any way with the practical use of language; therefore it can only ultimately describe the use of language.
Because it also does not lay the foundation for the use of language.
It makes everything as it is.
It also makes mathematics as it is, and it does not promote any mathematical discovery. For us, the "first problem of mathematical logic" is also a mathematical problem, just like any other mathematical problem. 〔PU，§124〕
One of the main causes of our incomprehension of certain things is our inability to look at the full picture of the use of words. Our grammar lacks such a look. The holistic way of expression leads to understanding, and understanding lies precisely in the fact that we "see the connection." Thus, the discovery or invention of intermediate links is extremely important.
The concept of holistic representation has fundamental implications for us. It marks our expression, the way we see things. (Is this a "worldview"?) ）〔PU，§122〕
Our reflections here go hand in hand with some of the ideas expressed in Goethe's The Deformation of Plants. Once we perceive similarities, we are all accustomed to finding a common source for it. From such phenomena to its past sources, this desire manifests itself in a particular way of thinking. Arguably, this is a single pattern of dealing with similarities, that is, lining them up in time. (That is presumably closely related to the uniqueness of the causal model.) But Goethe's view suggests that it is not the only possible form of conception. His conception of the primordial plant does not contain any assumptions—like Darwin's conception—about the development of the plant kingdom in time. So, what is the problem that this idea solves? It is a question of generalization, and Goethe's maxim "All plant organs are deformed leaves" gives us a scheme in which we can combine them according to the similarities of the plant organs, as if they revolve around some kind of natural center. We see that the original form of the leaf is transformed into a similar or homogeneous form, into the leaf of the calyx, into the leaf of the petal, into the organ that is half petal and half stamens, and so on. By connecting the leaves to other organs of the plant through intermediate forms, we track this sensory type shift.
That's exactly what we're doing here. We contrast a linguistic form with its environment, or deform it in our imagination, thus obtaining a landscape of the whole space in which the structure of our language acquires its existence. [DG, p. 308]
Solving contradictions with the help of the discovery of mathematics or logical mathematics is not the cause of philosophy. The business of philosophy is to make the mathematical situation that plagues us, the situation before the contradiction is resolved, a surveyable one. (And that doesn't mean bypassing the difficulty.) ）
The basic fact here is that we set the rules for a game — a trick ——, and when we follow the rules, what happens is different from what we originally thought. So we feel like we're stuck in our own rules.
The kind of fetters in our rules is what we want to understand, that is, what we want to look at.
This bond helps us to see the concept of "meaning" clearly. For in these cases things are not what we originally meant to be foreseen. When a contradiction arises, or in a situation like this, we say, "I don't mean this." ”
Contradictory civic status, or contradictory status in the civic world: this is a philosophical question. 〔PU，§125〕
Philosophy just puts everything there, without explaining or deducing. Since everything is openly there, there is nothing to explain. And we're not interested in what's hidden.
It is also possible to call all new discoveries and possibilities before new inventions "philosophy". 〔PU，§126〕
Philosophers work to collect memories for a specific purpose. 〔PU，§127〕
Whoever wishes to put forward arguments in philosophy will never be debated with him, because all agree with them. 〔PU，§128〕
If philosophy is to choose between competing theories, then it is right to teach philosophy historically. But if it were not for this choice, then it would be wrong to teach philosophy historically, for it would be almost unnecessary; we can explore the subject matter directly without having to think about history. [LWL, p. 82]
The most important aspects of things for us are obscured by their simplicity and ordinaryness. (You don't pay attention to it—because it's always in front of your eyes.) The true foundations of a man's research work are not in his sight. Unless it was sometimes precisely this that caught his attention. This is equivalent to saying that once we see it, it is the most shocking and powerful thing, and we usually turn a blind eye. 〔PU，§129〕
To see more clearly, as in countless similar situations, we must also see here the details of what has happened; we must examine them from close range. 〔PU，§51〕
Let's actually figure out the different circumstances and contexts in which a sentence will be uttered. 〔PU，§592〕
Here we encounter a highly characteristic and striking phenomenon in philosophical studies: the difficulty, I would say, is not to find an answer, but to recognize that something that seems to be merely prepared for an answer is actually the solution. "We've said everything. It's not something that comes out of it that's the answer, it's the answer! ”
I believe that this is linked to the fact that a description is an answer to a difficulty, as long as we put this description in the proper place of view, and we are mistakenly expecting an explanation. As long as we stay there with this description, we don't try to go beyond it.
The hard part is: let yourself stop. 〔Z，§314〕
It's hard not to overdo it in philosophy. [KMS, p. 271]
The hardest thing in philosophy is to say more than we really know. [APF, p. 27]
You say, "That's true, because that must be the case." (Schopenhauer: The real lifespan of a person is 100 years.) ）
"Of course, it must be!" It's as if you understand the intention of some Creator. Understood that system.
You don't ask "how long a person actually lives, and you think it's a superficial question now; you already understand something deeper. [CV, p. 37]
Conclusions are not deduced in philosophy. "This must be the way things are!" Not a philosophical proposition. Philosophy only affirms what everyone recognizes. 〔PU，§599〕
...... Because there's more to exploring than discovering... (Augustine) [Z, §457]
Philosophy can only be taught by asking questions. [AWL, p. 237]
Philosophy has such a complex structure, how is it? If philosophy is, as you say, the ultimate one independent of all experience, it should be extremely concise. Philosophy unravels the knots in our thoughts; so its results must be concise, but philosophical inquiry is as complex as the knots it goes to unravel. 〔Z，§452〕
"Take your time!" Philosophers should greet each other in this way. [CV, p. 109]
In philosophy, it is the person who wins at the end. [CV, p. 48]
A new word is like a fresh seed sprinkled into the garden of discussion. [CV, 4 pages]
Nietzsche once wrote that the best poets and thinkers have also written about mediocre inferiority, but they have separated the good from it. But not quite. The gardener is certainly not only roses in the garden, he also has fertilizer, garbage, weeds, but they are not only different in the level of goodness, but more importantly, their role in the garden is different.
A sentence that looks inferior can be the germ of a good sentence. [CV, p. 81]
There is always more vegetation for the philosopher in the valley of stupidity than on the barren mountain of wisdom. [CV, p. 109]
Please always descend from the barren peaks of wisdom to the lush valleys of stupidity. [CV, p. 103]
A mediocre writer must be careful not to be too eager to replace the crude, incorrect expression with the correct one. In this way, he killed the idea of the first descent, which was actually a living seedling. And now it's dead and worthless. Now it's time to throw it in the trash. And that poor little seedling was still of some use. [CV, p. 107]
It can be said that the anxiety in philosophy comes from our erroneous view of philosophy, which seems to be divided into some [endless] vertical strips rather than some [finite] horizontal strips. This rotated image caused great difficulties. It was as if we were trying to grasp the lines of infinity, complaining that it was impossible to do it piece by piece. Of course not, if a fragment is understood as an endless line. However, if a piece is understood as a horizontal strip, it may be carried out piece by piece. But then it is impossible to reach the end of our work! - Of course not, because it has no endpoints. 〔Z，§447〕
[It has been said that as long as all philosophical problems have not been solved, no philosophical problems have been solved; this means that as long as all philosophical problems are not solved, each new problem will make all our previous conclusions questionable. If we speak of philosophy in such a broad way, we can only give a very cursory answer to the above statement. Here's the thing: we've come to some parts of the conclusion that each has its place on the final picture, and that emerging problems have the potential to make the position they occupy questionable. [BB, p. 44]
The difficulties of philosophy are not like the difficulties of science, they are not intellectual difficulties, but the difficulties of conversion. What needs to be conquered is the resistance of the will.
As I often say, philosophy does not require me to make any sacrifices, because I do not forbid myself to say anything, but simply give up certain combinations of words because they are meaningless. But in another sense, philosophy does demand a renunciation, but it is an emotional renunciation, not an interpretive renunciation. Perhaps this is what makes philosophy so difficult for many people. Abandoning an expression can be as difficult as holding back tears or controlling anger. [KMS, p. 263]
Tolstoy: "The meaning of a thing lies in its universal intelligibility. This sentence is mixed. If something is meaningful and important, what makes it difficult to understand is not that to understand it requires some special teaching on obscure things, but because the correct understanding of it conflicts with what most people desire to see. Therefore, it is precisely the closest thing that can be the most incomprehensible.
What needs to be overcome is not the difficulty of understanding, but the difficulty of will.
The work to be done in philosophy—as is often done in architecture—is actually more about doing one's own work. Work on your own point of view. For how to see things. (And what you want from things.) (KMS, p. 263)
What I am doing to you is also persuasion. Jeans wrote a book called "The Mysterious Universe." I hate this book and say it's misleading. Just say the title of the book, and I will say that it is wrong to say that it is wrong. I might say that the title "The Mysterious Universe" contains a kind of idolatry, and the idols are science and scientists.
In a sense I am promoting one style of thought against another. I really hate that other. I also tried to say what I was thinking. But I'll stop and say to you, "Oh my God, don't do that. "I stopped my confusion and persuaded you to think in another way. For example, the expression: "An integer of all integers." "****** I can put these expressions in a new context and make them lose charm to a lot of people, and definitely lose charm to me." ******
A big part of what we do is the question of changing the style of thought. [LCA, pp. 354–355]
The diseases of an era can only be cured by changes in human lifestyle, and philosophical diseases can only be cured by changes in the way of thought and lifestyle; neither one invents a drug.
We can imagine that the use of the automobile produced and contributed to certain diseases until, for some reason, as a result of some social development, the habit of driving around disappeared again, and until then, human beings have been suffering from this disease. 〔RFM Ⅱ，§23〕
One of the most dangerous ideas in philosophy is—strange to say—that we think with our minds, or we think in our heads. 〔Z，§605〕
I would say that one needs to write philosophy only when one needs to write poetry; I believe this sums up my attitude toward philosophy. I think it must be clear from this how far my thoughts belong to the present, the future, or the past. Because by saying this, I admit that I myself cannot fully do what I want to do. [CV, p. 34]
In philosophy, we must distinguish between propositions that express the tendencies of our thoughts and propositions that solve problems. 〔LW Ⅰ，§109〕
Who wouldn't want to solve philosophical problems,—— why wouldn't he give up these efforts? For to solve philosophical problems means to change his position, to change the old way of thinking. If you don't want to change, then you should treat these problems as unsolvable. [LW II., p. 84]
Philosophical talent lies in the ability to receive a strong and lasting impression from a grammatical fact.
Humanity is deeply mired in philosophical confusion, i.e., grammatical confusion. Associations of all kinds bind them, and they cannot be freed without first being freed from them. It's as if you need to refactor their entire language. But their language grew so well because human beings had —and still do — tend to think in this way. Therefore, you can only succeed in liberating those who live in the instinct to rebel against language; as for others, all their instincts are to live in the flock, and this flock has created this language as a means of expression suitable for itself, to whom you cannot do anything about it. [KMS, p. 272]
When you feel stuck on an issue, don't think about it again and again, or you'll get stuck on it. We have to start thinking where we are perfectly competent and pleasant. Don't be hard! Hard problems have to be loosened before us. [NB II., p. 83]
What is the use of studying philosophy if it gives you nothing more than to enable you to paradoxically talk about questions of esoteric logic and the like, if it does not improve your thinking about important issues in everyday life, if it does not make you more cautious than any journalist in the use of dangerous words (and such people use them for their own ends) ? You know, I know that it's very difficult to think thoroughly about "certainty," "probabilistics," "perception," and so on. But it's much more difficult to think or strive to be truly honest about your life and the lives of others, if possible. The trouble is that thinking about these things is not intense, but often obviously unpleasant. And since it is unpleasant, it is the most important. [NMM, p. 33]
Suppose someone thinks he has found an answer to the "question of life" and says to himself that everything is now going well. To see that he was mistaken, he need only remind himself that he had not found this "solution" in the past; but then people still had to live. Looking at it this way, the solution he found seemed insignificant. The same goes for logic. If there is any "answer" to a logical problem (a philosophical question), we need recall that there was a time when they were not answered, and then people were still able to live and think. [KMS, p. 271]
Here I would like to make a general comment on the nature of philosophical questions. Philosophy lacks clarity, which is quite torturous. This can be a shame. We feel that we can't discern where we could have discerned the doorway. But that's not the case. There is no need for these distinctions, and there is no need to discern the doorway here, and we can live well. 〔BF Ⅲ，§33〕
Consider the question: "Why should the work we do here be called 'philosophy'?" Why should such work be regarded as the sole legitimate successor to the various activities that were previously called 'philosophy'? [BB, p. 62]
Where do the philosophical questions of the past derive their importance?
For example, the same law seems to have some fundamental importance. However, the proposition that "this 'law' is a meaningless sentence" replaces its importance. [KMS, p. 266]
Has there been no progress in philosophy? - You scratch your itch, must you see any progress here? Otherwise, isn't that really tickling? This reaction to irritation can not continue for a long time until a drug is found to cure itching? [CV, p. 118]
To engage in philosophy, you have to descend into that ancient chaos, where you can get water like a fish. [CV, p. 89]
The philosopher went mad and cried helplessly until he reached the core of his own confusion. [KMS, p. 271]
A philosophical problem is a consciousness of the disorder of our concepts, which can be eliminated by combing and rectifying. [KMS, p. 271]
Philosophical questions are like studying the establishment of a society. It is as if a society has no explicit law, but in a situation where rules must be followed: people have an instinct to be able to abide by certain rules in the conduct of joint affairs, but without explicitly declaring the subject matter and without clarifying the rules, thus creating greater difficulties. They see a member as the chairman, but he doesn't sit at the top of the table and doesn't have any way to identify him, which makes trading more difficult. So we came, bringing with us a clear order. We have the Chairman in a position where his position is easily distinguishable, for his secretary to sit at a small table specially set up next to him, for other ordinary members to sit on either side of a long table, and so on. [KMS, p. 268]
We want to establish an order in our knowledge of the use of language: an order for a particular purpose; one of many possible orders; not a unique order. To this end we will continue to highlight the distinctions that are easily overlooked in our everyday forms of language. This may give rise to the impression that we are committed to reforming the language.
It is certainly possible to reform the language for specific practical purposes, to improve our terminology in order to avoid misunderstandings in practical use. But these are not things we have to deal with. The confusion that worries us happens when the language seems to be idling, not when it's working properly. 〔PU，§132〕
What we have to do is not to refine or refine the system of rules for the use of words in ways that have never been heard before.
The clarity we seek is, of course, a kind of complete clarity. And that's just saying that philosophical problems should disappear completely.
The real discovery was this discovery—it allowed me to interrupt philosophical research whenever I wanted. This discovery gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which call into question the very existence of philosophy itself. - Now it is better to show a method by example, and this string of examples can be interrupted from it. Some problems are solved (difficulties are eliminated), rather than a single problem.
There is no single philosophical method, but there is a philosophical method, just as there are all kinds of treatments. 〔PU，§133〕
The grammar of a proposition is fully clarified, it is logically fully analyzed. [KMS, p. 269]
Whenever I say that we are at the borders of language here, it sounds as if it must be some type of self-denial; but on the contrary we have attained complete satisfaction, for there is nothing left here. [KMS, p. 271]
The problem is solved in a strict sense: like a piece of sugar in water.
If he does not feel a need for clarity in his arguments, he is abolished for the sake of philosophy. [KMS, p. 272]
In philosophy, whenever we encounter difficulties, we give grammatical rules. We may think that a complete logical analysis will give a complete grammar of a word. However, there is no such thing as a complete grammar. Still, it's useful to give a rule — if someone proposes an opposite rule and we're reluctant to follow it. We find that the rules of how to use a known word are not meant to give complete knowledge of how to use it, nor to tell others how to use it, as if people did not yet know how to use it. Logical analysis is an antidote. Its significance is to put an end to people's nonsense when reflecting on words. [AWL, pp. 151-152]
This is how all philosophical problems are solved. Only when the answers are plain and ordinary will they be correct answers. [KMS, p. 266]
Micro-lessons are recommended
01 20 philosophers daigo-inspired life strategies
Ordinary people study philosophy, not to learn, but to get inspiration from philosophy, and then match it to their own life experience, constantly thinking, doubting, reflecting... Thus organizing into your own philosophy and finding ways to deal with various problems.
This philosophy course will focus on 20 "big problems" in life, such as loneliness, love and hate, life and death, confusion, and desire, each of which is divided into 5 lectures, telling you about the thought systems of 20 ancient and modern philosophers such as Heidegger, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Camus, Plato, and Sartre, and explore their own life strategies.
02 104 wisdom courses spanning the 2000 history of philosophy
This course does not pursue "efficiency", does not throw textbook introductions to philosophy directly to you, but carefully "grinds" difficult ideas into vivid stories and easy telling, and takes you a little bit to understand the long history of philosophy and the essence of philosophers' thought through 104 courses in a whole year.
The presenter will analyze the essence of 20 classic philosophical works such as "Existence and Time", "Republic", "Meditations", and "Drinking Chapters" for you. It covers ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, early modern Western European philosophy, German classical philosophy, existentialism and postmodernism.
03 Philosophies and inspirations of 100+ literary and artistic works
At the beginning of each lesson, the presenter will cut in with a movie, a novel or a piece of music, on the one hand, in order to start from vivid emotional experience and realization, and then rise to philosophical questions and reflections, so that the audience can more easily open the door to philosophical thinking.
On the other hand, in addition to the function of entertainment, good literary and artistic works also contain a life experience and a possibility of life. Deeply understand the connotation behind literary and artistic works, do not stick to the self, better understand others, and understand the external world.