Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein once believed that language's function was to name objects and the meaning of language was found in the objects for which it stands. He later rejected this and centred on how language works and is used, believing that problems of religious language come from misunderstanding its usage. Wittgenstein was no longer concerned with the truth or falsity of language but the way it is used and the functions that it performs, as he said 'Don't ask for the meaning

Considered by many to be one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a man of many thoughts and emotions. His works in language and logic are his most famous, his philosophy and opinions have left a mark in philosophy was we know it. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was a book he claimed that solved all questions in life, yet he wrote another book, Philosophical Investigations, taking a similar yet different route. Now his works have left a lasting impact even outside

Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein The connections between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Soren Kierkegaard as philosophers are not at all immediately obvious. On the surface, Wittgenstein deals with matters concerning the incorrect use of philosophical language and Kierkegaard focuses almost exclusively on answering the question 'how to become a Christian'. But this account belies deeper structural similarities between these men's important works. Thus, this paper suggests that their methods, rather than

Investigations is an inherently pedagogical work. Wittgenstein claims throughout his later writings to be teaching a method and this method is both philosophical and pedagogical. It is the claim of this paper that if we do not take Wittgenstein's methodological claim seriously, we do not engage with the text in the manner for which it was written. Consequently, we begin and end in the wrong places and the text becomes (in the words of Wittgenstein) 'variously misunderstood, more or less mangled and

one's own view as advantageous to the alternatives. In response to this reason, Ludwig Wittgenstein claimed that one of the most important aspects of communication in philosophical standpoint is grammar. It is in view of the thought that Grammar

time, leaving a cryptic note: “Don’t waste my time.” This helps Will finally realizes what Henry meant all along, and was able to understand and comprehend his private language and personal code philosophized as discussed by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. In the movie In Time Will Salas is a low income factory worker who lives

philosophical analysis of an idea presented by Ludwig Wittgenstein in On Certainty Introduction Countless philosophers, from centuries ago to modern times, have investigated the concept of inherited ideas. Some of the more daunting questions on the subject seem to be: From where do these ideas originate? Can we trust them? Do they serve as an objective foundation for the rest of our judgments, or are they in fact mere judgments themselves? Ludwig Wittgenstein addresses such questions in his written

A Philosophical Examination of Language "Philosophy is language idling." —Ludwig Wittgenstein   Language and philosophy have an intimate connection to one another; without a philosophical examination of the meanings and structure of language, we cannot easily ascertain the objective truth of the statements we make, nor can we usefully discuss abstract concepts. The philosophy of language seeks to understand the concepts expressed by language and to find a system by which it can effectively

that we are justified in inferring the existence of other minds. In assessing whether the argument from analogy succeeds in its aims, I will raise and respond to Malcolm’s objection against the argument from analogy; Austrian-born British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘Beetle in a Box’ thought experiment; as well as Welsh philosopher H. H. Price’s argument and English philosopher Stuart Hampshire’s argument in defence of the argument from analogy.

The Concept of Intelligence ABSTRACT: Gilbert Ryle’s dispositional analysis of the concept of intelligence makes the error of assimilating intelligence to the category of dispositional or semi-dispositional concepts. Far from being a dispositional concept, intelligence is an episodic concept that refers neither to dispositions nor to ‘knowing how,’ but to a fashion or style of proceeding whose significance is adverbial. Being derivative from the function of the adverb ‘intelligently,’ the concept