Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Ludwig Wittgenstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Photographs

Latest comment: 7 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion

User:Volsav is claiming that all those photographs in the newly created gallery, taken from Ray Monk's 1991 book Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius are their "own work"? That seems a little unlikely. Perhaps User:Diannaa could advise us here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I will fix this, if possible, apologies if I have made a major mistake here. I would be glad to work together in fixing this! Volsav (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the copyright-free status of each one can be resolved (?) There is the wider question of whether such a gallery adds any value to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe such a gallery is valuable. More information is always more valuable if it can be sourced. It gives a chronological understanding of Wittgenstein's life in pictures rather than simply words. Relying on words alone can send one's mind afloat, pictures ground those thoughts in reality. Volsav (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I wish to add if the moderator comes along. I am very much prepared to change the copyright status on all the images if you guide me. Please do not delete them if it is possible to fix them. I will be prepared to fix them all myself and waste none of your time! Volsav (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have now changed the sources for all the images from 'Own' to the following: Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk (ISBN 978-1-448-11267-8). If there is anything you would like me to do, please say something below. I believe these images are really necessary for archiving Wittgenstein's life. Volsav (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably you have a copy of that book to hand. So could you confirm that none of the images are reproduced there with a copyright acknowledgement credit, i.e. that they are all fully in the public domain? Even if this is so, however, I'm not sure that the lack of any copyright statement is sufficent to allow assumption that no copyright exists, and I was hoping for clarification on this from User:Diannaa. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Volsav has uploaded some 145 images to the Commons. Sourcing is currently inadequate; each file needs a specific source. The book is Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius and the version available via Google books does not appear to have any photographs at all. Some of the photos are from http://www.wittgenstein.org.uk/gallery.htm. Some of the photos are provably public domain, as there are dates provide at http://www.wittgenstein.org.uk/gallery.htm. The ones that are PD will have to have their licenses corrected. None of them are provably cc-by-sa-4.0, which is the license Volsav chose to tag them with. I suggest you go to the Commons and start a mass deletion nomination of the images that are not provably public domain. If you don't know how to do this please see User talk:Diannaa/Archive 50#Images @ Commons. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful clarification and advice, Diannaa. Volsav is very welcome to go and start a mass deletion nomination of the images. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I do have a copy of the book to hand and can prove all the images are in here. All of the images can be found online in a variety of formats. Does this now mean I should nominate a mass deletion of the images? Volsav (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but are there copyright credits for any of the images in the book, e.g. "reproduced by kind permission of...." etc., etc? And yes, Diannaa is suggesting that, alas. But she does also say: "The ones that are PD will have to have their licenses corrected." So if you could provide a rationale for Public Domain, I don't think there would be a need to delete those. However, cc-by-sa-4.0 did not exist when all these images were created, so I think has to go in all cases. Two of the images already seem to be tagged with a "fair use" rationale. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry for this hassle, Martin. All of the images are used in a wide array of PD university articles. If I were to change their sources and correct their licences, could the photographs be allowed to remain? I have just added some more photographs from a Telegraph article but I did not tag them with any Copyright license for fear that they may be deleted. Can you help me in this matter? The book states at the end in 'Acknowledgements', "I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr Michael Nedo of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose knowledge of Wittgenstein’s manuscripts is unrivalled, and who has, over the years, collected photographs, documents and copies of documents connected with Wittgenstein that constitute an immensely useful archive. He not only gave me completely free access to this material, but also devoted much of his time to the discussion of many and various aspects of my research. I am also greatly indebted to him for providing me with copies of his careful transcriptions of the coded remarks in Wittgenstein’s manuscripts." Michael Nedo manages the Wittgenstein archive. Does this information provide anything for you, Martinevans123? Again, I wish to apologise, I understand that having a newbie come to Wikipedia and mess it all up isn't very pleasing. Volsav (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Volsav, I think it's clear that you have acted in perfectly good faith here, in a noble attempt to improve the article, as you see it. We were all newbies once. The acknowledgement extract you have copied from the book doesn't really help much, except to suggest that many of the photos may have been originally supplied to Monk by Nedo. Unless there is a dedicated list of copyright acknowledgments hidden away somewhere in the book, it seem likely that, due to their age most, if not all, of the photos will be out of copyright in the book, which seems to have been first published in 1990 New York by The Free Press. The first thing for you to do is to add a specific source for each photo - you may have photocopied directly from the book or, as you suggest, may have found them online. I think that's the first task for you to perform if you can. Nobody seems to be very keen to delete the gallery you have created in the article (although some of the captions seem a bit long), so I guess that can stay for now, at least until all the copyright issues have been resolved. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Martinevans123. When you say add a specific source for each photo, does that mean adding a secondary source to the biography source? I will be able to do that as the photos exist on a lot of sites. Also, how would you like me to condense the postcard photographs and their respective quotes? Volsav (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I can only suggest something like this, unless User:Diannaa has any better ideas. Is there a limit on how many images we can copy from a published work, even if they are all in the public domain? I just don't know. (I must admit with that particular image I struggle to see how it adds very much to this article). We can tackle the captions later. I must admit I had hoped from more input from other editors about the idea of a gallery itself. Otherwise we may end up doing a lot of work for nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move the photographs which provide evidence up into the actual article itself and instead only retain photographs of Wittgenstein in the 'Photographs' section? What I mean by that is, for example, move the letter from Eccles up into the kite-flying period of Wittgenstein's life as evidence that he did indeed stay at the 'the Grouse Inn' and move photographs of his house in Norway up into the section about living in Norway. You are quite right, some of the photographs do seem unnecessary. It is my fault, I am far too obsessed with archiving and forget that an article must be cleaner. Volsav (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

By all means, if additional photos can support the text, without causing overcrowding, they should be moved up and integrated. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that many photographs is likely a bit much. Perhaps we can whittle it down some and flesh out the Commons:Ludwig Wittgenstein with the rest. We could then emphasize a link to that page here. Sizeofint (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Volsav, you need to ask advice over at Commons about the correct licensing for all the images you have uploaded. For some you claim to be the copyright holder, which is not correct, is it? For many others you have added this license, which is not appropriate. For your latest additions there is no license at all, which means they may be automatically deleted after 7 days. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

There are lots of pictures. That is ok. It's not so many that the article becomes more a photo archive than an encyclopedia article. Keep the photos. There will never be any new photos. I've tried communicating with Martinevans123, but in my opinion, there is a good chance that he is more concerned with making lots of edits, and may not be able to really understand complex things like "attribution" or "fair use", so I don't really know what to do. He can delete the pictures again, but why would that be good? It seems clear that all pictures in this article qualify legally as "fair use" (n.b. I am not a US judge). Less pictures in the section "pictures" doesn't improve the article, so why delete relevant pictures, except to be ornery? --IPEditor (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I will sort this all out now. I will move the pictures which are evidence up into the main body of the article and remove some family photographs (Side portrait of Karl) as these exist on other pages. I will retain the other photographs. Bear with me, I will get advice from the commons and fix all of this. Volsav (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, Martinevans123. I've gotten myself into a really big twist. I have fixed up the Haus Wittgenstein and other pages a LITTLE bit, moving and deleting photographs which needed to be moved into other articles and deleting duplicates BUT, my bloody god, I have no understanding when it comes to this copyright malarkey. Is there any way you could guide me on all of this before the images are wiped from Wikipedia? I will continue my editing a little later on and retain only the photographs which can't be put elsewhere into the article or other ones. I do hope to fix this up soon. Volsav (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Volsav, it's obvious that you want to improve the article as you see it and to edit in a collegial way. So I thank you for that. As I said before, the age of these images means it's very likely they have fallen out of copyright (but I don't understand all the intricacies of the legal differences between UK and USA). So it's going to more a case of labeling in the right way. The people over at the noticeboards at Commons should be able to give you advice - that's their job. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC) p.s. as I hoped my edit summaries made clear, I deleted only images that were duplicates of those in the main body or which had the fair use rationale for a different article. In my experience galleries are not generally liked for non-artist articles, as they make the page look a bit like a picture book rather than an encyclopedia. A single external link to a collection of photos (such as a Commons link) is usually deemed sufficient. But views differ.

Martinevans123, I'VE GOT IT! I now understand the copyright system (to an extent) and all of these images shall now be fixed! Just give me a few hours. Also, I am going to move all the relevant images in the photograph section upwards and then purge the photographs section which *I* created. Photographs which are related but not to the actual article itself shall be moved to other pages. Don't worry. I've got things in order now (I think). Volsav (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I've fixed up the copyrights and authors (I think). If you could possibly check this for me, thanks. Volsav (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Volsav. Yes, all looks good to me, thanks. And well done with adding the Categories too. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I have now moved relevant photographs upwards and purged the Photographs section as the remaining photographs were all postcards. The postcards have been used but the remaining non-relevant ones have been categorised in commons. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT THE CHANGE. Thank you. Volsav (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss is actually one of the ~~fundamental~~ tenets of Wikipedia, Volsav. Sizeofint (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this photograph does not have the correct license. [1] Sizeofint (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have now fixed the license for the photograph and its author, Sizeofint. I apologise about making changes before discussion but I thought other users and I had come to an agreement as it was me who created the gallery. Before removing the gallery, most of the photographs were rather irrelevant. I await your response. Volsav (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't generally need to discuss before making a bold change unless the change is likely to be controversial or to a widely used template, so no need to apologize. I'm just saying telling people not to revert kind of misses the point of how Wikipedia operates. The number of images in the article now may be somewhat excessive. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know which ones are worth keeping, so I likely won't revert here. There are likely other editors that have opinions so just be prepared to engage with them here. Sizeofint (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ludwig Wittgenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ludwig Wittgenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

1941–1944: World War II and Guy's Hospital

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this is badly named. I'm not against putting years but I think the description is odd as WW2 was not from 1941-44. It also then leaves a gap unaccounted for in the text from 1944 to 1947. Can we try a bit harder please? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have sorted this issue by including more information from those years to extend it from 1941-1947. I welcome your criticism. Rìgh (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In what way(s) did Friedrich Nietzsche influence Wittgenstein and what are the reliable sources for this? Currently this article makes no mention of Nietzsche. And the Nietzsche article names Wittgenstein only in the list of "Influences" in the infobox. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have evidence that Wittgenstein was influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche. Wittgenstein read some Nietzsche going by his Notebooks: 1914-1916 and Culture and Value. Here is an excerpt from Culture and Value: "Nietzsche writes somewhere, that even the best poets & thinkers have written mediocre & bad stuff, but have just separated off the good. But it is not quite like that. It's true that along with the roses a gardener has manure & sweepings & straw in his garden, but they are distinguished not only by value, but above all too by function in the garden. What looks like a bad sentence can be the germ of a good one." - MS 134 124: 8.4.1947. The writing of Nietzsche that Wittgenstein is referring to is Human, All-Too Human. Theodore Redpath writes in his memoir of Wittgenstein that Wittgenstein had read Nietzsche. Here is a link for proof: https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=tADXAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=nietzsche I hope this helps. Rìgh (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Acquaintenance with Hitler

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states, that - however Wittgenstein and Hitler was in the same school - there is no evidence that they met each other (but it is "overwhelmingly probable"). I saw a photo where the label states, both of them are on the same picture (a school class photo?). Is this statement true?

Link of the photo: http://static.keptelenseg.hu/p/84c32a0e8f289d6ce0b7e13c0e6063a6.jpg

I wonder could you also link the source for that image, to provide some context? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. also helpful if you could sign you posts, thanks.

That image is false and has been circulating on the internet for quite some time. The origin for this misconception is due to the writers Laurence Goldstein and Kimberley Cornish. Goldstein who insinuated that Hitler's anti-Semitism was heightened by knowing Wittgenstein and Cornish was suggesting that picture is of Wittgenstein. In fact, it is unknown whether Wittgenstein and Hitler knew each other, owing to them being two grades apart in school but Monk contests that they may have known of one another in the years 1904-1905. That photograph stems from 1900 or 1901, before Wittgenstein's time. Although, the boy in the top right is indeed Hitler, the boy in the bottom left is not Wittgenstein and can be confirmed to not be him on the basis of the years he was in attendance, the year the photograph was taken and the fact that pictures of Wittgenstein (recently added) as a young boy do not look like that boy. Rìgh (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinsent again

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

So we now need a source for "platonic". We discussed this at some length back in 2012 at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 10#Pinsent, where the consensus seemed to fall slightly the other way around? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor inserted the claim of platonic love in 2015 (seemingly with no-one challenging them). They provided no source to back this up. I think the insertion is spurious unless it can be supported by this quote. I for one feel uneasy that a lot of time is being spent in this article to downplay the fact that Wittgenstein was gay but to try and suggest that he was secretly very religious. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you read that previous Talk page discussion? I think the general consensus is that Wittgenstein was not gay but probably bisexual. You have sources which show that his love affair with Pinsent was definitely sexual? I think the question of his religious views is a separate one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether the relationship with Pinsent was sexual - I wasn't say there watching them. The sources cited, however, say they were lovers. Do you have a source than says they were just platonic friends? This is a bold statement. Not having sex with someone (even assuming they didn't have sex) doesn't presuppose that a relationship is platonic. They are very different things. In any case find a source that uses the word "platonic" and let's then consider how we handle the material.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you read that previous Talk page discussion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read actually - seeing as you didn't even notice that I was involved in the discussion. Doh. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting you to at least acknowledge it's existence after a gap of five years. I think other editors might also have found such an acknowledgment useful, But perhaps you can remember what was said, word for word, without having to re-read it. If so, you're very fortunate Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. I had kind of guessed that you "weren't there watching them". Perhaps Goldstein was there watching them?

Saying that it was Platonic requires a source because that is an affirmation of the nature of their relationship. I was not able to find any such assertion in a review of the literature yesterday. While we know that Wittgenstein's relationship ideal was platonic, we also know that he did not live up to this ideal on all occasions and that he had sex with at least one of his male love interests. Lacking evidence of the nature of his relationship with Pinsent is not the same as evidence of lack. Therefore it is better and more factual to simply write that they had a relationship without specifying the type, or if need be that we do not know if it was sexual - at least untill a source that can be provided that specifically states that it was platonic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sensible. Agreed. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No objection. I'd still maintain that the word "lover", without any qualification, suggests a sexual relationship. At least, it does in 2017. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many homosexual affairs historically had to be conducted clandestinely and so an "emotional/ romantic" relationship as opposed to a "physical" one may have been quite common. But in any case the source cited uses the word lover. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Faith

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This section of the article is written in a fashion that suggests things about Wittgenstein's religious belief that might not be there. That is, particular words are used such as "fundemental" which insinuate that Wittgenstein grew more religiously entrenched as his life went on. This can be debated as Wittgenstein's relationship with religion was very complex and not easily expressed in words. This section seems to me to have been written by someone who has an interest in presenting Wittgenstein as a fervent Christian which again is not about denying outright but about debating and providing balance to it in the article and section which it seemingly does not do at the present time. Rìgh (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It needs a re-write. There are many people who try to retrospectively make individuals look more religious than they actually were. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80 and Rìgh: I Reckon the categories about his "agnoticism" should be removed. 189.54.145.230 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Background, the Wittgensteins

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two problems; this is plagiarized without permission and it is from a blog; http://deutschlandostmark.blogspot.com/2015_03_01_archive.html; should be deleted.Mwinog2777 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Which Wittgenstein?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the section concerning the brothers' suicides, it is said: 'Later Wittgenstein wrote: "I ought to have... become a star in the sky. Instead of which I have remained stuck on earth."'

Which Wittgenstein wrote this? Was it the one most recently mentioned (Karl), or was it the subject of ther article? MrDemeanour (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an online McGuinness here. It looks to me as if those words are Ludwig's. I'm not sure why we can't use the whole quote as it's only a few words longer. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The YouTube video BBC Horizon film Wittgenstein: A Wonderful Life (1989) minute 29:16 of total length 48:53, credits Ludwig Wittgenstein with those words -- "I ought to have done something positive with my life, to have become a star in the sky. Instead I remained stuck on earth and am now gradually fading out.". --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

List of influences

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There have been several small discussions on this, which can all be found in the archives. Perhaps the most notable are this one from 2005 and, more recently, this one from 2010? Can it be agreed that all of those in the list should at least be supported by material in this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think William James is an extremely important influence on Wittgenstein and I can give several reasons as to why I think this if necessary. I think the criteria that "influenced by" should be supported by the material in the article is improper because of two reasons, first there are already philosophers in his "influences" which are not supported by the article (Spengler, Kraus, Loos, Sraffa, Hertz, and von Helmholtz), and this criteria is absent for every philosopher wiki page I've seen, including Russel, Moore, Descartes, and William James. I can show my reasoning as to why I think James should be included if necessary, but for starters William James's page lists Wittgenstein as someone who James influenced. -ck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.161.126 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reasons why James should be included on Wittgenstein's list of influences:

"According to Monk, Wittgenstein had even thought of using The Principles as a course text in order to illustrate the conceptual confusions that he was trying to fight, but in the end —as he told Rhees— he preferred to talk just from his own head. In short, during his last years of his life Wittgenstein very often referred to James in his lectures, and—to everybody’s astonishment—on one occasion he even referred to an exact page number!" Numbiola, Jamie. “Ludwig Wittgenstein and WJ.” Streams of William James. Volume 2, Issue 3, Fall 2000.

“Whenever I have time I now read James’s Varieties of religious exp [sic]. This book does me a lot of good.” Said by Wittgenstein in a letter to Russell. G. H. von Wright, ed. Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore. Blackwell, Oxford, 1974, 10.

In Philosophical Investigations, James was mentioned 5 times and the only thinker who was referenced more than him was St. Augustine (6 times).

"WITTGENSTEIN A book you should read is William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience; that was a book that helped me a lot at one time. DRURY: Oh yes, I have read that. I always enjoy reading anything of William James. He is such a human person. WITTGENSTEIN: That’s what makes him a good philosopher; he was a real human being." Drury, M. OC. The Selected Writings of Maurice OConnor Drury: on Wittgenstein, Philosophy, Religion and Psychiatry. Edited by John Hayes, Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.

In a book we know Wittgenstein read and recommended, Varieties of Religious Experience, there is the following passage: "Most books on the philosophy of religion try to begin with a precise definition of what its essence consists of. Some of these would-be definitions may possibly come before us in later portions of this course, and I shall not be pedantic enough to enumerate any of them to you now. Meanwhile the very fact that they are so many and so different from one another is enough to prove that the word “religion” cannot stand for any single principle or essence, but is rather a collective name." This is nearly identical with Wittgenstein's concept of "family resemblance." The influence is clear. -ck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.91 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I assume you are the same editor who posted above on 1 March? Try to sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ It would be a good idea if you registered as an editor, as you evidently seem to care about article content. I think you need to add some of this material, perhaps the most pertinent parts, complete with the sources, into the article, so that the infobox claim is supported. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What was Wittgenstein's nationality? The infobox says, very clearly, just Austrian. Editor Lehol seems to think he was "Austrian-born British". The topic was discussed before, in 2015. See Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 10#Austrian-British. There is no doubt he was born in Austria. I believe there is little doubt that he was still Austria when he became famous. The outstanding question seems to be if he relinquished his Austrian citizenship in 1939 when he acquired British citizenship. At the moment we now have a clear inconsistency in the article, between the text and the infobox, that alters what has been the agreed consensus for the past 4 years? This change was made with the edit summary "cleared up his origin". I don't think it clears up his origin at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Current consensus for the existing "Austrian-British" seems to have been reached here on 26 May 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

that’s a lie, it’s not a consensus. The whole problem in trying to make the Austrian philosopher a British was raised by you in 2015. The only person that agreed with you at that time seems to have been blocked since 2015... interesting to note, someone who had no editions at that time came to this page to agree with you and the same was blocked at that year and never came back... dear, stop it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus may change, of course. Although I don't see that any of the facts about Wittgenstein's life have changed since they were discussed 4 years ago. Perhaps you could outline here your reasons why you think "Austrian-born British" is preferable to "Austrian-British". Other interested editors can then comment. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. Try to sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~

How many in family?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states his parents had nine children, five boys and four girls, however it also states that three of the five brothers committed suicide...since this is an article about one of the boys shouldn't it read either "three of the four brothers committed suicide" or "three of the five boys committed suicide?" Historian932 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ludwig was a boy. He was also a brother. The article currently says "three of his four brothers committed suicide", which seems entirely accurate (except that there is some uncertainty over Hans). But I'd agree that your suggested wording might be clearer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit support

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive copy edit support/input help any of the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

Draft:Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Philosophy

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The given pronunciation for Wittgenstein's first name is German: [ˈluːtvɪç], which would be correct for current 'standard' German and more northern varieties. However, since he was born in present-day Austria, his own pronunciation would be German: [ˈluːtvɪk]. Should this be changed in the article? --Lajos vH (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but in the section about his school days it says that "he spoke an unusually pure form of High German". Favonian (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Class may be the explanation. Errantius (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A Polite Suggestion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We need more emphasis on his philosophical content and tad bit less on his biography.

That is just a polite suggestion from me. TY.

184.22.249.124 (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the online Roy Louis source reliable or not?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It should be determined (via decent secondary sources such as biographies etc) whether it is normally considered such or not. At present much of the 'death' section presents Wittgenstein as a non-Catholic and some sort of agnostic, yet Louis is also cited as a reliable source for Wittgenstein's wish to have a Catholic priest at his death bed; but Louis also asserts that Wittgenstein was a 'lapsed Catholic' who had wanted to 'reconcile' with the Church before his death and had only failed to make a confession due to lack of time. --87.126.23.130 (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on reading Monk's Wittgenstein biography and other sources, Wittgenstein did want to meet with a priest and did discuss religious matters with him (on about 3 occassions I think), but he probably was not interested in formally converting to Catholicism (It's about 860-880 of the Duty of Genius). Louis is right about the events that transpired, but he is just speculating about what LW thought. It's not so much that the source is inaccurate as that it contains both facts alongside speculations, which Roy Monk and others consider to be unfounded speculations. Anscombe, for instance, thought that LW's intention was not to convert. Furthermore, I understand why LW is called agnostic, but it's misleading and probably doesn't belong in the death section. He didn't have a change of faith near the end of his life, and he continued praying and believed in God just as before in his devout but non-doctrinal way since his service in WWI 35 years prior. He might be called agnostic in the way Kierkegaard might be called an agnostic theist, as LW thought that religious faith had nothing to do with "proofs" or "evidence," although it would be very confusing and should probably be removed, as he wasn't actually a fedeist but something more complex related to "forms of life." He definitely was not an agnostic in the colloquial sense of the term, i.e. someone who thinks it's unknowable or lacks an opinion on God. Also, the quote from Labron about LW seems to contradict his own journals—LW said he liked all religions even though he couldn't believe in their doctrines and was worried about the rise of scientific thinking in religious matters. Overall, that and the "agnostic" part should probably be deleted, because they are misleading and don't belong in the death section because they don't relate to any new change since 1914. FictiveMusic (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I decided to remove the last paragraph of the Death section and incorporate some of the notions there into the Faith section where it is more relevant. The only source that's cited is Norman Malcom, which is problematic becuase Maloclm only knew Wittgenstein for a few years at the end of his life and was just speculating about his religious beliefs. It's good to cite him for recollections of LW, but the speculations are confused. Much better to cite LW's journals where he is very clear about his religious beleifs, or the biographers who have looked over his journals and remarks. Later I would like to make a "Religious views" section outside of the history of his life because his very idiosyncratic but debout religiosity is difficult to explain. FictiveMusic (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

read during 23/02/2021 (message from Uniquepw)

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

read: book by Alexander Waugh (2013 Bloomsbury)

copy (seemed significant at the time), dashes ("-" indicates read from preceeding to proceeding (before to after), dots ("...") indicates didn't read

scintillating

at 116 "..mask of cheerfulness.."

I was incredulous because Waugh must have fabricated the detail (surely) to state this

117 - "...he explained to her in touching tones.."

doesn't seem very possible to know of

Uniquepw (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

ps 1 change made after tilde

pps 'The Golden Age of Security' is "Stefan Zweig" Uniquepw (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(115) "Arriving in Switzerland - a Picasso that she was tempted to purchase ... I die the thousand unnecessary deaths that every coward dies ... Like Ludwig - rails of Tolstovian Christianity ... son Tommy ... (116) Paul's Altered Character The mask of cheerfulness with which Paul had greeted his family ... Memories of his father, of his suicidal brothers Hans and Rudi, guilt at having (117) deserted his comrades at Krepost...Ludwig's unstable mind...frustrations of every kind - sat by her bedside...Rosalie's dying - stoicism...When she died - addressed to Mrs Wittgenstein ... After her death Paul's agitation and irritability increased - Hermine and Mrs Wittgenstein - frequency of his 'crazy moods' - was both apologetic...He explained to her in touching tones how much he was suffering from his own irritability ... (120) interested in the stump - music ... The death on 21 November 1916 of Emperor - 'The Golden Age of Security'... (121) The Wittgensteins - (lower class - literally 'not born')... Alleegasse and Neuwaldegg ...'loosen her ties to Papa'...At court the Emperor - Austrian arms ... (122) Lenin's envoy Leon Trotsky - at Brest-Litovsk ...Oblivious to the threat of execution - August 1917 ... (124) ...Paul's illness (a violent influenza)...Schiele's - died on the 28th ... Corporal Adolf Hitler - you out to accomplish something ... (127) ...A special poignancy marks - it became too much for him and he killed himself ... In the confusion of these days their would have been no inquiries...- This version however conflicts with that of Gretl's son - because he refused to be taken prisoner by the Italians... Johanna, following her interviews with family members - 1980s...(128) refused to obey - dispatching himself in a sudden burst of fury...

Uniquepw (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are suggesting. Are you proposing any changes to the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I just had in mind: "copyright provisions criticism and review", to make other interested editors aware of my findings, since Waugh is given as a source, but their seemed to be scope for criticism (ergo the legal provision is validated) - which is not to state Waugh isn't a reliable source. but that the reliablness exists with a type of psychopathy where the reader is being charmed into thinking all he states is true (i.e. "scintillating") - not to state Waugh is a psychopath, or their is anything wrong with being a psychopath (which their is I suppose, but I'm not a psychiatrist of employed by the police services), but their isn't any way to improve on a problem if no-one identifies the problem exists). To provide my view of the source for others to review and provide their opinions on, cordially, i am uniquepw (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the article contains copyvio material copied from Waugh? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

my suggestion is only of the source here being not completely truthful so it seems to me. My suggestion is to look at the source because the legal provision being described as I've indicated in fact has a value by which an individual could garner by obeyance to the legal provision the guidance of the provision, which directs a readers attention to the text again, to re-read (i.e. review) being valuable to the intellect as the vagaries of one emotional state (at the 1st reading) are thought to make a corresponding impression being not shared by a review impression, therefore by comparison in the self of the 2 subjective impressions a reader could reveal to their own minds a more objective position (which represents a more neutral standing on the subject) and corresponds to a more civilized situation (than for example 1 subjective position (version) at contrary to a 2nd (which seems more like an argument, disagreement, (Waugh even) - that an individual should make this argument in their own minds rather than not and instead arguing with others (as an inferior situation for everyone). I'm not a judge to think whether copyvio has occurred, such consideration isn't realistic I think considering the lack of article content to source indication existing within wikipedia. The legal situation seems to me to be in some way foregone (I don't know though), cordially, i am uniquepw (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're on about. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I added the copy for the interest of other editors, to prove I'd read the relevant parts of the book, since I added criticisms of the author. The criticisms aren't aimed to indicate anything other than the existence of the criticised parts of the book, if it is that other readers would like to judge for themselves, cordially i am uniquepw (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, it isn't possible to wear a mask of cheerfulness, because that would suggest, Paul was greeting his family with the mask on, yet afterwards he would have to speak and his expression would change, which isn't possible since masks are static fronts - but the author proceeds to validate the subsequent lack of mask for reasons - I don't see (he doesn't provide valid indication from letters, writing of Paul - diary entries) of how he would know Paul's mental state, the continuation of "mask" to no mask is just an extension of the previous conceit that the author must have Paul wearing a "mask" therefore he can't continue to wear the mask (the staticness is sufficient without the need for reasons) the author suggests Paul failed to understand he couldn't wear the mask to hide his true emotions, "could not be worn for long". The author I think is presuming theatre of war is therefore a justification for "two masks of theatre" (comedy, tragedy), but who-ever thinks that was the reality of the situation - I can't see any indication of evidence to prove it's true means I don't know it's true. Without seeing the connection of evidence which could prove that was what happened - he could have arrived miserable then felt comforted by his family (therefore no mask included, or vice-versa to as the author suggests). i am uniquepw (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

while doing labwork the problem existed also ekswhere

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ekswhere&safe=strict&nfpr=1&ei=Fto5YIDOMPXIxgOZnLrwCQ&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiAsZmArInvAhV1pHEKHRmODp4Q8NMDegQIAhBC&biw=881&bih=424 (page 2 http://www.soliforum.com/topic/16673/new-3rd-party-resin-from-applylabwork/) - is viewable at the google url - I made the error because the sidebar opened unnecessarily on the editorial page (first time I've seen this function) + the time is 5:46 where I live, which is indicating mental tiredness contributed also (lapse of concentration). I'm hoping this problem is unique and won't occur again. Uniquepw (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)\

You are talking nonsense again. I think that all of your postings here should be removed. Errantius (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm also finding it very difficult to understand this editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I made a mistake in the editorial summary (a typo) @ 05:31, 27 February 2021 - I'm giving reasons I think I made the error. The link is included here because after I made the error, I felt disappointed so searched "ekswhere" to find a link showing "Labwork" in the title plus the same typo. It's not important (np), I'm providing a courtesy explanation to other editors so that other editors don't think I'm prone to make errors as a habit. i am uniquepw (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that the problem is not about making errors but about not making sense at all. Let's see—over maybe 3 days—whether other editors agree that the sections containing your posts should be removed. Errantius (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You're not getting the message. I have reverted all your recent changes to the article, commenting: "successive disruption and mockery by user Uniquepw". You will get a warning on your Talk page. Errantius (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Uniquepw

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

User:Uniquepw, what did you mean by this edit summary? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Which do you refer to ? their are two there, cordially i am uniquepw (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

08:00, 28 February 2021

- "considering 4 has proceeded after 3 for a number of years now" (is dry wit(gennstein) - considering the statement of the relationship between the two numbers is patently obvious (which is to suggest implicitly the world is as it is and cannot be made to any other, no matter how sad the factual existing situation - I cannot invent a world where it is necessary to state the "fourth" has any real relevancy to the article, because I could count for myself, plus the world can't be made different to make it necessary)

-" the amount of time it takes to read the 3 words" is a suggestion toward the brevity of life, and a suggestion of indignance because of the lower value inclusion, unneccesary inclusion (the 4th is patently obvious to the eye by seeing without the need for a mental count of head to see the number)

-"is tantamount to famine in the consciousness of anyone needing to nourish their hunger " time is money (and food cost money) - the waste of time to read unneccesary words is the same as the time it takes to throw having rotten food consequently into a rubbish bin (c.f. an accountant counts to the pennies, doesn't round up or down) the cumulative every little waste of time finally arrives at a significant waste of life

- (no disrespect to Attila the Hun (grrr) intended)" is +/- a joke on hunger being a negative value word (except for fasting q.v. the amount of time it takes isn't fast), trying to evaluate the reason why someone would think possible the need for "fourth" being that the sentence does read nicely with the words included, but that other peoples motivations for preference (i.e. I think the words better not included, someone else having written the words thinks better to have included (for reason the sentence reads nicely) represents in this cosmopolitan age, the possibility of simply someone else being of a group perhaps the Huns (seeing "barbarian", that it is held in a negative value to civilization, at least within the native populations of Europe presumably (and using my observation it seems true that my position is in representing a more sensible and valuable choice) (being a tribal group, shamanistic perhaps, therefore with totemic values - and shamanism is an inhereted value for some peoples on earth today - that I shouldn't cause offence to that group: expressed succinctly by hun grrr <--- a growling dog perhaps (Homo homini lupus)

-"bytes " bites of food

-"a Dora bull" looking at the word Dora (and thinking of the sadly tragic existence of LW, the word phonetically is a possible verb a doorer (which is to state that it could be applied (as a verb) to the last door of life (imagining that doors partition one period from another period in a lifetime, such that if the door opens then closes and is locked (and an individual is on the other side, then they are dead), it seems like Dora would be the original force for death by a poetic reasoning of this meaning to the verb done to the brothers (at LW's lack of exuberance and joie de vivre at the possibility of an enriched human life to live)

-"bull" being included as a route to "a beef sandwich with mustard" (which is to take in some way the emotion of needing to comfort someone for their loss and sublimating this emotion to a more acceptable suggestion - for example a bull (symbolizing strength) to a dead thing eaten by someone (happens in life (shit happens would be another way of offering a succinct and pertinent direction of thought), to the unhappily occurring sad events that sometimes occur, given the complete irrelevance of "bull" in the sentence, and death seems so very meaningless, the beef sandwich with mustard is meant to indicate something happily occurring from death (which is the best possible comfort I could pride as an extension of thing "Dora" has a hidden more profond meaning; but not the actually best possible (c.f. vegetarianism, veganism, dietary preferences). Plus the sandwich is food, so this turns my and any other reader to practically a better suggestion (eating, therefore feeding the brain with nutrients, instead of struggling paralysed in a seat when the problem is dietary, brain glucose levels) - I can't give myself food as compensation for the waste of time of reading the words (because the words aren't food)

-"(this sandwich is therefore free for anyone (although their's only 1 (should you or I get Luki that is))" is an attempt at general compensation to the world for this loss of life, and "Luki" is because is LW's petname, plus a play of the word - if you are the lucky one you would be that individual to eat the sandwich

i am uniquepw (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time to stop now, Uniquepw. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

21:22, 28 February 2021‎ Martinevans123

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

@Martinevans123: I'm all for retaining committed, as I've stated at 19:37, 28 February 2021, that by using the word it causes a reader to think like the subject so that helps us all to gain insight into the individual and those relatives, but my thoughts were as indicated @ 19:37, 28 February 2021, which is to state the expression is a form of the opinion held in the catholic church, of suicide being a crime (is the strongest against opinion, or, moral sin, a lesser accusation). Given that the world doesn't belong to Catholics, the direct of peoples values on concepts shouldn't be belonging to those that don't own them. Such that "committed" represents the subject, and is true of the subject, the word isn't true of the world (their is a conflict) - the word is relatively true, not absolutely true. i am uniquepw (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not suicide is a crime is generally decided by individual national legislatures, not by Catholics. I believe the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" views suicide as a sin. But that's not quite the same thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thou shalt not kill is the moral foundation for the legislature murder is a crime, the second is a re-expression of the first. But by looking at the comparison of the two expressions, it is possible to understand "thou shalt not", is a denial of the direction of an impulse in the self, and an order (command) (i.e. you will not (halt at doing) kill), but, murder is a crime, is only to state something is, with the freedom to interpret the statement, given consequences, the known sequences of behaviours resulting from the government should the act murder be detected, resulting in a consequence for the detected individual i am uniquepw (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

By the current assessment of the act of Suicide Mental disorders ~ completely exonerates anyone from guilt, to the extent of "murder" since by mental disorder an individual is thought as having "diminished responsibility" (by process in trial - a judge might find a mentally disordered someone guilty of murder, in the real world, but that is simply to state that - a judge works for the interest of justice and public safety, but not being by profession a psychiatrist, doesn't appreciate to the fullest extent the value of human life (such that judges are sometimes empowered by a monarch or by a republic to end lives, while doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath to never do this) - and to this extent that they "suffer from a mental disorder" indicates the contrary to crime "committed" to instead that they are victims not perpetrators. i am uniquepw (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

given "committ, committed" is the moot subject, the word is used in "committed a crime" was my thoughts; comparing possible expressions of this word: the brothers killed themselves, the brothers died by their owns hands, the brothers decided to take their own lives, the brothers died by suicide, the brothers died by suicidal means, the brothers chose death by suicide, the brothers died as a result of suicidal acts, the brothers died because they decided suicide...I can't think of any additional expressions at this time i am uniquepw (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at meaning and etymology - wiktionary, as a verb, my understanding is second in the list, which indicates perhaps there is an applicable meaning at the 1st meaning: "To give in trust; to put into charge or keeping; to entrust; to consign; used with to or formerly unto." <--- does indicate a direction for crime therefore imprisonment --->"to give in trust" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trust, doesn't indicate a crime necessarily at etymological levels, although interestingly "Gothic trausti (trausti, “alliance, pact”)" (i.e. because suicide pact i am uniquepw (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the most recent discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language, using the phrase committed suicide continues to be allowed, however editors are free to come up with an alternative wording if it fits the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

discussion of edit 13:44, 8 March 2021 - "cite 23"

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Uniquepw (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC) (signed at top to keep the comparison below correct)
moved the location of the last citation in the introduction - if a reader reads from the 1st word of the article to the last word of the introduction, in the version prior to this edit (q.v. below), the last thing they would see (be aware of) would be the cite [23], which seemed a meaningless conclusion to the reading, but then I reasoned had some validity, if a person imagines the intro is 1 (ending 23), the sequence indicates/represents a logical progression (Background is therefore 4, et cetera), but scrolling down Background is 1 again, which refutes to a degree the idea of this progression - although the Background 1 ---> 1.1 ---> 1.2 ----> 1.3 ----> 2 ---> .... could be a re-inforcement of the logical idea in the conclusion ending with the number 23 I suppose, (obviously the idea of a logical progression harmonizes well with Wittgenstein).

Having decided to split the passage (see below), I subsequently re-determined not to, because the quote is integral as a whole, as split could introduce "distortion" - (so the proceeding discussion is perhaps redundant)

(Reasoning for a split of the passage as shown below) because "believed" seems to be with "felt", and correspondingly "ideas" with "writing". The choice of place of separation of the quote from the words attached to "Georg Henrik von Wright" was made at "believed", therefore "believed" isn't representing Wittgenstein (as a group of words separated to indicate a type of quote), instead the word is more associated to the opinion of Wright - "He once said he felt as though" I think doesn't represent Wittgenstein (evidently, as "He once said.." is Wright not Wittgenstein), I'm presuming "Logic" precludes emotion (that is: felt ---> feelings ---> emotion). Additionally the word "felt", if understood as having a similar meaning to "touching", in Waugh (p.117) "...he explained to her in touching tones..." (the author refers to "Paul" explaining); music is more sensory an experience than logic and philosophy, the latter being more to do with thinking not sensing), and, Wittgenstein never married (he couldn't have feelings (for anyone) romantically or sexually ("felt" understood as touch), he never felt her soft skin, for example (c.f. "Paul women" (a criteria of search) @ Waugh (pp. 145, 146 "He was attractive to and attracted by a great many women", "According to Ji Stonborough, Paul had endless mistresses...").

In the words of a friend, Georg Henrik von Wright, ^[23] he believed that

his ideas were generally misunderstood and distorted even by those who professed to be his disciples. He doubted he would be better understood in the future.

He once said he felt as though

he was writing for people who would think in a different way, breathe a different air of life, from that of present-day men.

In the words of a friend, Georg Henrik von Wright, he believed that

his ideas were generally misunderstood and distorted even by those who professed to be his disciples. He doubted he would be better understood in the future. He once said he felt as though he was writing for people who would think in a different way, breathe a different air of life, from that of present-day men.^[23]

Uniquepw, editors sign their posts at the bottom. It's pretty simple. Regarding the content of your post, I think to discuss this is a waste of everyone's time. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Uniquepw, I think you have been wasting so much time and space, ignoring protests, that you may have to be blocked. Kindly note the policy WP:BLOCKP:

Blocks should be preventative

Blocks should be used to:

prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and
encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

On criteria, see also WP:CNH. You have been warned. Errantius (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'll consider your warning in all seriousness as a effort to redirect my attention to a more constructive area, of contributing. In my defence - I presumed my mode of activity was expected for progression of consensus, it wasn't my intention to waste anyone's time. Apologies for disturbing your energies Errantius. Hopefully their shouldn't be any need for a block, if you have any additional suggested course of action or choices which you think I could assume to align my direction to more within the boundaries of activity expected, I would think surely of taking that course of action or choice(s), thanks Uniquepw (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-natalism

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is in Category:Anti-natalists, but after scanning through I can't see where this is cited. Could someone please point me to the section of the article that mentions this? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong article cited

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article cited in fn. 108 contains none of the information for which it is cited.Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC) In case edits cause the footnote numbers to change, here is the text that fn. 108 now accompanies: "He began his studies in mechanical engineering at the Technische Hochschule Berlin in Charlottenburg, Berlin, on 23 October 1906, lodging with the family of professor Dr. Jolles. He attended for three semesters, and was awarded a diploma (Abgangzeugnis) on 5 May 1908.[108]"Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nationality in 1938

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The infobox reads, as of today:

| nationality =

Austrian (until 1938)
German (1938-1939)^[1]
British (from 1939)

I had added the footnote that LW became legally German from 3 July 1938, following a German decree that I cited. I said "legally" because WP indentifies nationality with substantive criteria—how somebody is generally identifed; how they identify themself. I thought there was a MOS policy stating so, but I can't find it. However, it is WP practice. For example, Billy Connolly is listed as "Scottish" although his passport would certainly say "British".

A user has objected in a hidden note: "This source fails WP:PRIMARY? Does not mention Wittgenstein. Secondary source e.g. biog needed." Quite right in principle and I did check Monk's biography. But Monk cites (p 392) only the advice to LW from Piero Sraffa on 14 March 1938: "You are aware no doubt that now you are a German citizen." Sraffa has reasonably assumed that LW had become German as soon as Austria had become part of Germany. To cite Monk for WP on whether or when LW became German would be wrong; it would at least have to be corrected with reference to the decree.

The decree is a primary source, but WP:PRIMARY says:

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

The meaning of the decree is plain to anybody who can read German and I don't take that to be an excluded specialisation.

User 86.11.204.88, on the other hand, has added: "1938)|German (1938". If I am correct about substantive criteria, this seems inappropriate. LW is not thought of, and did not think of himself, as German. On the contrary, as Monk relates, in 1938 he was desperately trying to avoid being German.

Thus I would change the "nationality" entry back to where I left it: Austrian and then British, with a note that briefly in 1938 he was legally German. Errantius (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that essentially what it says now? I think it's fine as is. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

My point was that LW was never "German" on substantive criteria, so should not be listed as "German" along with "Austrian" and "British", although it should be noted that German nationality/citizenship had briefly been imposed upon him. Briefly, I think, because British law at that time seems not to have permitted dual nationality and it seems unlikely that German law did. Errantius (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that my explanation has been accepted, so I have changed back to "Austrian (until 1939)" and "British (from 1939)" with a note about the (formal) legal position in 1938. Errantius (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Legally, German from 3 July 1938: Verordnung über die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit im Lande Österreich, 3 July 1938

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Death notice Ludwig Wittgenstein.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New influence: dostoevsky!!!

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to a memoir by his colleague Norman Malcolm, Wittgenstein read The Brothers Karamazov, “an extraordinary number of times,” but considered Notes from the House of the Dead Dostoevsky’s best work. There is a resonance between the Tractatus and Dostoevsky’s aesthetics. I am a scholar currently studying Dostoevsky's nonlinearity and presuppositions of chaos theory (see: N Katherine Hayles, Chaos and Order). It is abundantly obvious to me that Dostoevsky was a primary influence on Wittgenstein's Tractatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.s.puckett (talk • contribs) 15:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"one of the most important and influential philosophers"

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

In this edit yesterday User:Cornelis Dopper replaced the longstanding lead section description of "He is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of the modern era." with "He is considered to be one of the most important and influential philosophers of the modern era." No reason was given. User:Cornelis Dopper has since offered this source for the new claim. I do not regard Duncan J. Richter of the "Virginia Military Institute U.S.A." as the best source for such a claim, especially as it appears in the lead section. The previous claim, which is still present in the main body, was perfectly well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As clearly explained in my edit summaries, I have removed the citation in the lead section as per WP:LEADCITE. I have chosen not to restore the original description, which I think is a better one, in an attempt to avoid an edit war with User:Cornelis Dopper. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have protected this article for 24 hours to stop clear and obvious edit warring. Cornelis Dopper, you need to explain the rationale for your changes, and seek out a third opinion or another form of dispute resolution if you cannot settle any differences. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 I have explained this to Martinevans123 multiple times! Unfortunately his actions are so contradictory and devoid from logic that it's impossible to argue with him. For instance: Martinevan123 originally complained about the formulation 'one of the greatest...', calling it not appropriate for this. Then I changed it to something else and he changed it immediately back, demanding a source. Then I gave a source (from a peer reviewed academic page), and now he's complaining about the authority of the author. It never stops! He's never satisfied. And when you meet his demands he comes with other demands. It's completely crazy. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

To give another example: look at the talk page of Martin Heidegger(^[1]). I've supplied perfectly sound sources for the exact same statement ('one of the greatest...') and he's complaining that the qualification is not good (and was apparently unable to find it, as if that was necessary). And now here, at the page for Wittgenstein, he's suddenly defending the exact same qualification he wants to get rid of at the Heidegger page. It makes no sense whatsoever. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Cornelis Dopper, "as if that was necessary" - I would say it certainly is necessary. Wikipedia has no policy that says "the lead sections of all philosophers must all look the same." These are separate articles. They were separate people. Article content depends on the quality of the sources, in each separate case. Not your own personal agenda for how the lead sections should look. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Kindly avoid using phrases such as " completely crazy" and "This schizophrenic behavior is getting weirder and weirder." You are demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach which is very tiring and counter-productive. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinions about each other - can you stick to the facts, please.

Okay, I'll give you a third opinion, and my recommendation is to go back to this edit, which mentions nothing about "greatest", "important" or "influential". While the article correctly states Wittgenstein's contribution to modern philosophy, some of his actions, not least the Haidbauer incident mean he is a more complex character than any of those three words could give reasonable credit to. So I would recommend using the diff stated here as a base-line compromise. Are you both okay with that? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, again, I have no problem with any solution, as long as there is consistency. There's in my opinion no reason to get rid of 'one of the greatest...' or 'one of the most influential...' (which is in my view semantically almost similar) when applied to Wittgenstein, because that simply was his importance for 20th century philosophy. But the same goes for Heidegger, and that's my point: there's no consistency here whatsoever. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that you think the "opinions" expressed by the two of us are equally worthless. I think the recent escapade to AN/I clearly demonstrated a difference there. I'd prefer first to clarify exactly when and where "the greatest philosopher of the 20th century" was added. This seems to have been a stable version for some time. I've been contributing since November 2011. I also think it might be a good idea to get the views of other regular contributors. If that means an RfC, so be it. Sorry, I don't think Martin Heidegger is relevant to this discussion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A very typical reaction once again. Starting a discussion, but never entering in an actual debate on the content of the matter, never providing arguments. Off course Martin Heidegger is relevant, they're both philosophers, both generally viewed as the most important philosophers of the 20th century. If it's allowed to refer to one of them as 'one of the greatest', but not the other, then surely there has to be some inconsistency. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

By "opinions about each other", I mean things like "Unfortunately his actions are so contradictory and devoid from logic that it's impossible to argue with him". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Cornelis Dopper, you seem to be unable to make a single contribution here without resorting to personal attack. If you continue in this vein, I fear your time at Wikipedia will be neither a happy nor productive one. I set out my concerns very clearly at the start of this thread. I think it's perfectly reasonable to invite the views of other editors, whether they agree with me or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. So far I've merely expressed my views about your opinions. Have those views been strong? Probably yes, but have they been personal? Absolutely not! It seems to me that you're constantly making these kind of statements without actually providing evidence, much like what you're doing in the discussions. You are reverting edits and bringing it to the TP, but then you refuse to engage in a proper exchange of arguments. So far my questions have been unanswered, and when I gave you the sources of my statements in the article you refused to give a reaction. If this is your attitude, then it's difficult to make progress.Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd made an attempt at introducing a (hoped to be) less controversial IEP-backed line that LW "is considered to be one of the most influential philosophers of the modern era" but noting possible problems with that and the nature of the edit war pursued against Martinevans123 by a now (rightly) banned user have made a modified revert back towards the stable SEP-backed claim that was in place prior to the commencement of hostilities i.e: "He is considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century." (with cite explicitly in lead.) I'm happy to trust Martin and other editors in good-standing to re-edit that (and my slight corresponding alterations in the Assessment section) as they see fit. Jy Houston (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Heidegger

New IP editor

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems we now have a new serial IP editor, this time from Belgium, who provides edit summaries only when they want to make a point. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

error

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein 'Jewish background and Hitler

Further information: History of the Jews in Austria

There is much debate about the extent to which Wittgenstein and his siblings, who were of 3/4 Jewish descent, saw themselves as Jews. The issue has arisen in particular regarding Wittgenstein's schooldays, because Adolf Hitler was, for a while, at the same school at the same time.[94][95] Laurence Goldstein argues that it is "overwhelmingly probable" that the boys met each other and that Hitler would have disliked Wittgenstein, a "stammering, precocious, precious, aristocratic upstart ..."[96][97] '

the Laurence Goldstein link is not to the right person, it should be to the late philosopher of that name. 82.4.145.219 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Done I have unlinked. We do not have a page for the Laurence Goldstein who was Professor of Mind and Language at the University of Hong Kong. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you 82.4.145.219 (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As you mention, he died in 2014 and was a professor of philosophy at the University of Kent. Here's a post about a 2015 Conference in his memory. He might be a candidate for a new article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

interesting article

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://unherd.com/2022/05/ludwig-wittgensteins-war-on-philosophy/ --Espoo (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation; I enjoyed the article. I take issue, however, with the third paragraph from the end, because I see no connection between Wittgenstein's insight that language is a social phenomenon and undermining "middle-class individualism" and a "distaste for the cult of the individual." Wittgenstein wrote about language, not about individualism. And, as Eagleton notes, he spent considerable time living by himself in a hut on a Norwegian fjord. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)