Does Tractatus Wittgenstein pass over the idea of a noumenal world in silence? Does later Wittgenstein attempt to reconnect with the noumenal world? Do these questions make sense?

Does Tractatus Wittgenstein pass over the idea of a noumenal world in silence? Does later Wittgenstein attempt to reconnect with the noumenal world? Do these questions make sense?

Does Tractatus Wittgenstein pass over the idea of a noumenal world in silence? Does later Wittgenstein attempt to reconnect with the noumenal world? Do these questions make sense?

I think I understand what you mean by these questions, but I don't think the later Wittgenstein would.

I think I know what you mean, but I also think that Wittgenstein would know what Deckard meant.

I can imagine that Wittgenstein would have understood, but only in a Pickwickian sense.

I meant, of course, the latter of the two definitions

I suppose the reason why I thought W would understand was the fascination he had with Schopenhauer, who was quite the Kantian. I can imagine W grinning a bit, indeed.

If I remember correctly, he loved detective novels and violent American movies. A person whose name I can't remember said he could do amazing impressions, that he could have been a performer, a comedian. His philosophy seems austere by contrast. It makes me wonder.

He could whistle whole Beethoven symphonies almost note for note. He was a proficient architect, and built a beautiful house for his very wealthy family. He was the brother of Paul Wittgenstein, the pianist, for whom Ravel wrote his Concerto for the Left Hand, because Paul lost his hand during combat in the first World War. Johannes Brahms was a frequent visitor to the home of his family.

Yes, my point was that W would have understood talk about the "noumenal world," but only as a symptom that language had gone on a holiday, not as a reference to some metaphysical realm beyond the phenomenal world.

Yes, my point was that W would have understood talk about the "noumenal world," but only as a symptom that language had gone on a holiday, not as a reference to some metaphysical realm beyond the phenomenal world.

What do you make of those passages in the Tractatus about the self being the limit of the world? Of course that's his earlier stuff, but these are some of my favorite passages.

Also, I would like your opinion on this quote from Rorty on Wittgenstein.

"He thereby became reconciled to the notion that there was nothing ineffable, and that philosophy, like language, was just a set of indefinitely expansible social practices, not a bounded whole whose periphery might be shown."

And this one, a little down the page:

"This position entails, as Nagel puts its, that any thoughts we can form of a mind-independent reality must remain within the boundaries set by our human form of life."

Kant's noumena was a sort of limiting concept. An X for the unknown, I think, and nothing more.

What do you make of those passages in the Tractatus about the self being the limit of the world? Of course that's his earlier stuff, but these are some of my favorite passages.

Also, I would like your opinion on this quote from Rorty on Wittgenstein.

"He thereby became reconciled to the notion that there was nothing ineffable, and that philosophy, like language, was just a set of indefinitely expansible social practices, not a bounded whole whose periphery might be shown."

And this one, a little down the page:

"This position entails, as Nagel puts its, that any thoughts we can form of a mind-independent reality must remain within the boundaries set by our human form of life."

Kant's noumena was a sort of limiting concept. An X for the unknown, I think, and nothing more.

I am inclined to agree with Rorty's reading -- at least, I agree with the first of the passages you quoted.

In many ways, I find the view offered in the Tractatus to be more attractive than the one in the Investigations. Unfortunately, I think the view of the Investigations is the correct one. (Unless one believes, as some have argued, that W actually had the same view of language in the Tractatus as he had in the Investigations, and that the Tractatus was simply an attempt to present his view in a different way).

Does Tractatus Wittgenstein pass over the idea of a noumenal world in silence? Does later Wittgenstein attempt to reconnect with the noumenal world? Do these questions make sense?

Would you agree that the Investigates have little to say about the history of philosophy? Extremely piece-meal work. The Tractatus is more exciting by far, I think. And yet I feel that the picture theory of language is quite limited. Can the later statements in the Tractatus concerning the self and silence be accounted for by the picture theory of meaning? In your opinion?

Have you read Wittgenstein's Vienna? That book implies that Fritz Mauthner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia influenced Wittgenstein. Indeed, that Vienna was generally concerned with Wittgensteinian issues.
Also that ethics were Wittgenstein's motivating concern.