Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Wittgenstein's influence in philosophy is enormous and undeniable. The bulk of analytical philosophers are Wittgensteinians, as they themselves admit. Why? In personal qualities? He was quite a nasty person and managed to quarrel and quarrel with all the people close to him, not to mention distant ones. In the back of your mind? Or maybe, on the contrary, in their turbidity, in which subsequent analysts tried to find depth. He may not be as muddy as Hegel or Heidegger, but he is still much closer to them than Russell, Carnap, and Popper. The Viennese circle was very skeptical of him, especially after he refused to give any clear comments on his treatise. So why is a muddy philosophy more influential than a clear one? Why are Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, and Wittgenstein more influential? Why do people get carried away with dregs?
Ludwig Wittgenstein is not a philosopher, so it is impossible to overestimate him as a philosopher. This would-be philosopher argued that human language is not capable of describing the world. He was wrong.