Philosophy 101

[Endovior]

Interesting question... but before you get the wrong idea, I'm not saying that if I can't perceive something, it doesn't exist. Nor is it a case of 'since I can't perceive it, it may as well not exist'. That would be the subjectivism you are referring to. I beleive that existence does exist on it's own, independent of me... BUT that as I also exist, the interaction of my perceptions and objective reality reveal the truth of existence to me.

Basically, I'm saying that yes, the information I gather with my senses does indeed reveal the truth about reality.

 

[CartesianFart]

Interesting question... but before you get the wrong idea, I'm not saying that if I can't perceive something, it doesn't exist.

Wait a minute.This is not an Berkelian question of if a tree falls in the wood without someone there to percieve it,it does not exist.It is a question of Solipsism.A philosophical doctrine that states that the self is only thing that can be known or verified.

Nor is it a case of 'since I can't perceive it, it may as well not exist'.

Well,you can refute that claim,such as Berkley have conveyed,that it doesn't neccessarily have to be a individual who percieve such phenomenon but it can still exist as long there is a divine mind out there to percieve it.God is omnipresent.Of course if you are not a believer of that there is a supernatural power that exist before time or percieve every space than you can go ahead and just downright say..nonsense!

I beleive that existence does exist on it's own, independent of me... BUT that as I also exist, the interaction of my perceptions and objective reality reveal the truth of existence to me.

This is where we have to stop and look at this.As long as you are aware of your perception,how can it ever be an objective one when it is only you doing the percieving.Unless you can claim to have an out of body experience or something to claim objectivity.Like suspension on an astral plane floating toward the clouds and looking downward upon yourself.

Basically, I'm saying that yes, the information I gather with my senses does indeed reveal the truth about reality.

Can i ask you a question.If you blink for a couple of intervals and open your eyes,what give you the sense that there is a connection of unperceiving and percieving as being an actual process of knowing the continuous reality that you are witnessing?

 

[Endovior]

Wait a minute.This is not an Berkelian question of if a tree falls in the wood without someone there to percieve it,it does not exist.It is a question of Solipsism.A philosophical doctrine that states that the self is only thing that can be known or verified.

I don't claim that. I claim that other things can be known and verified, based on the information conveyed by the senses, and by reason. For example, since I am talking to you, I can be certain that you exist, because things that do not exist do not post to internet forums.

Well,you can refute that claim,such as Berkley have conveyed,that it doesn't neccessarily have to be a individual who percieve such phenomenon but it can still exist as long there is a divine mind out there to percieve it.God is omnipresent.Of course if you are not a believer of that there is a supernatural power that exist before time or percieve every space than you can go ahead and just downright say..nonsense!

If one were inclined to defend subjectivism (I am not), then I suppose one could employ such sophistry to create a virtual substitute for objectivism, grounded in faith instead of reason. However, I'm not, and I don't.

This is where we have to stop and look at this.As long as you are aware of your perception,how can it ever be an objective one when it is only you doing the percieving.Unless you can claim to have an out of body experience or something to claim objectivity.Like suspension on an astral plane floating toward the clouds and looking downward upon yourself.

You apply a strange definition of objectivity. You seem to define an objective fact as a fact produced from nonexistence observing that which exists. I disagree, because that is a contradiction; what does not exist cannot observe nor convey facts. I define an objective fact as one which is independent of it's observer, and continues to exist regardless of the observer (this is opposed to subjective opinion and belief, which only 'exists' within the mind of the being imagining it).

Can i ask you a question.If you blink for a couple of intervals and open your eyes,what give you the sense that there is a connection of unperceiving and percieving as being an actual process of knowing the continuous reality that you are witnessing?

My rationality. I know that existence exists. I am conscious of it's existence, and even if I do not perceive a portion of it directly at any given time, or ever, I can be certain it exists because my reason concludes that it does. For example, I have never been to New York. However, many others claim that New York does indeed exist, and describe the events that go on there in great detail. It is irrational to beleive that such is an elaborate deception, and thus, it is rational to believe that New York exists.

 

[QES]

Cartesianfart seems to be doing all my work for me.
-Qes

 

[Endovior]

Well, if you agree with him, join him.

I'll take you both on.

 

[QES]

I don't claim that. I claim that other things can be known and verified, based on the information conveyed by the senses, and by reason. For example, since I am talking to you, I can be certain that you exist, because things that do not exist do not post to internet forums.

How do you know that it is not merely your will that projects the "other" into a counter-space to communicate with you? When you speak to people in your dreams, is it any less real? For certain, the internet already deludes what we conciously precieve as reality (i.e. the 40 year old creepy guy pretending to be a 13 year old girl), and I cannot imagine that you might believe in this "other" without some other sort of proof or reason.

If one were inclined to defend subjectivism (I am not), then I suppose one could employ such sophistry to create a virtual substitute for objectivism, grounded in faith instead of reason. However, I'm not, and I don't.

You apply a strange definition of objectivity. You seem to define an objective fact as a fact produced from nonexistence observing that which exists. I disagree, because that is a contradiction; what does not exist cannot observe nor convey facts. I define an objective fact as one which is independent of it's observer, and continues to exist regardless of the observer (this is opposed to subjective opinion and belief, which only 'exists' within the mind of the being imagining it).

I shall ask a simple question: What is independant of an observer? Any observer?

My rationality. I know that existence exists. I am conscious of it's existence, and even if I do not perceive a portion of it directly at any given time, or ever, I can be certain it exists because my reason concludes that it does. For example, I have never been to New York. However, many others claim that New York does indeed exist, and describe the events that go on there in great detail. It is irrational to beleive that such is an elaborate deception, and thus, it is rational to believe that New York exists.

It is circular to say that existance exists because you think it does. Especially when there is the possibility tha you are quite insane, and this is all a manifestation of your mind. However, if you wish to call that manifestation, existance, then that is perfectly fine, but then we must conclude that each person's existance (if there are indeed others) are independant of your own.

Also, rationality and irrationality are subject to the defintions and presuppositions ABOUT existance itself.

-Qes

EDIT: You dont honestly believe youll solve anything do you? Philosophy is about questions, not answers. To "take us on" denotes competition and potential for victory. At best you could portray yourself as smarter, but what good is that? Especially if we may be merely figments of your deranged immagination?

 

[Fifty]

I've just entered this thread and haven't read most of it, so I may be way of as to what you guys are talking about.

It seems to me that it is useful to assume that objective reality exists because that's a very useful starting point. if we deny everything that isnt certain we cant even establish that our own perceptions or counsciousness or any of that stuff exists!

 

[Endovior]

How do you know that it is not merely your will that projects the "other" into a counter-space to communicate with you? When you speak to people in your dreams, is it any less real? For certain, the internet already deludes what we conciously precieve as reality (i.e. the 40 year old creepy guy pretending to be a 13 year old girl), and I cannot imagine that you might believe in this "other" without some other sort of proof or reason.

Because I don't will reality... reality exists independent of myself and my desires. If reality was subject to my will, it'd be different then it is.

I shall ask a simple question: What is independant of an observer? Any observer?

Anything that's existence does not depend on the observer in question is to be considered independent of the observer.

It is circular to say that existance exists because you think it does. Especially when there is the possibility tha you are quite insane, and this is all a manifestation of your mind. However, if you wish to call that manifestation, existance, then that is perfectly fine, but then we must conclude that each person's existance (if there are indeed others) are independant of your own.

Also, rationality and irrationality are subject to the defintions and presuppositions ABOUT existance itself.

I don't claim that existence exists because I think it does... that is the very essence of solipsism. Existence exists independent of me, and I know that it does because it is what it is regardless of what I want it to be.

And yes, rationality and irrationality are very different, depending on your epistemology.

EDIT: You dont honestly believe youll solve anything do you? Philosophy is about questions, not answers. To "take us on" denotes competition and potential for victory. At best you could portray yourself as smarter, but what good is that? Especially if we may be merely figments of your deranged immagination?

Well, we can debate on and on, and as is usual in these cases, the one who cannot answer 'loses'. The 'good' in that is not in the end, however, but in the means. It's mental exercise, a thoughtful consideration of one's own beliefs. If your beliefs can't stand the challenges of others, then you should reconsider them, and this is mutually beneficial. As for the last point, I deny the possibility. I believe that you exist, and I suspect that you agree. Unless you are prepared to argue that you don't?

 

[Endovior]

I've just entered this thread and haven't read most of it, so I may be way of as to what you guys are talking about.

It seems to me that it is useful to assume that objective reality exists because that's a very useful starting point. if we deny everything that isnt certain we cant even establish that our own perceptions or counsciousness or any of that stuff exists!

There's that, yeah. Unfortunately, that's exactly the point they seem to be arguing. Existence as your own insane dream. I disagree, of course... but according to their standards, I can't prove it. My contention is that seeing as how all evidence and reason points to the world being real, and since you interact with the world as if it were real, then it is rational to assume it is real. Assuming that the world is unreal leads to negative consequences, such as insanity. Ironically, if you really act as if the world is an insane dream, then it will indeed be, for you... as the nice men in white coats haul you off to a center for other people who believe the same.

 

[Fifty]

There's that, yeah. Unfortunately, that's exactly the point they seem to be arguing. Existence as your own insane dream. I disagree, of course... but according to their standards, I can't prove it. My contention is that seeing as how all evidence and reason points to the world being real, and since you interact with the world as if it were real, then it is rational to assume it is real. Assuming that the world is unreal leads to negative consequences, such as insanity. Ironically, if you really act as if the world is an insane dream, then it will indeed be, for you... as the nice men in white coats haul you off to a center for other people who believe the same.

I largely agree.

It is certainly an interesting philosophical exercise to apply some form of doubt to the existence of the "objective" material world, and it is of course impossible to prove in the most rigid sense that such a world exists. However, it is (IMO) rather fruitless to just apply doubt and leave it at that. If you are interested in doubting everything that can be doubted, you should be able to realize very very quickly that the entire exercise is self-defeating by nature. So we have to establish assumptions somewhere, and it seems like the existence of the external world is one of these assumptions that are highly useful.

 

[CartesianFart]

I don't claim that. I claim that other things can be known and verified, based on the information conveyed by the senses, and by reason.

I have underlined your statement for the reason that i am puzzled by two extreme positions-Rationalism and Empiricism,that you somehow think they are compatible which they are not.

How can you say that things can be known wholly from pure reason,whithout the aid from the senses and also say that knowledge derives from experience?It is to say that i experience things that are to be something real but i doubt it for the sake that i am not sure because my reason(which is not observing my experiences) tells me otherwise.

since I am talking to you, I can be certain that you exist, because things that do not exist do not post to internet forums.

That is a solipsist position.

What is the matter of our miscommunication(which i suspect from my first post in this thread)is that i think you confuse what is "realism" is.Realism,not the philosophical doctrine that universals or abstract terms are objectively true(as opposed to nominalism which i like to use as a way to clarifyfor to rid of confusion)or some kind of claim that material objects exist in themselves,apart from a conscious human being,but a practical outlook rather than imaginary or visionary.Can solipsism coincide with realism?I say yes.

If one were inclined to defend subjectivism (I am not), then I suppose one could employ such sophistry to create a virtual substitute for objectivism, grounded in faith instead of reason. However, I'm not, and I don't.

Yeah,but you sure are not shy of your sophistical virtual substitute as an artifice for your own faith instead of objective reasoning,such as confusing rationalism and empircism as one.

You apply a strange definition of objectivity.

Not strange at all,just to expand the point by demarcating philosophical problems that shown to be only conceptual problems(such as empiricism and rationalism) when a form of utterance that is habitually used by one "form of life"(which is you ) as something that is a mode mistakenly used in the wrong context.

You seem to define an objective fact as a fact produced from nonexistence observing that which exists.

Nope.A case of misunderstanding.

I disagree, because that is a contradiction; what does not exist cannot observe nor convey facts. I define an objective fact as one which is independent of it's observer, and continues to exist regardless of the observer (this is opposed to subjective opinion and belief, which only 'exists' within the mind of the being imagining it).

"Everything is flux"-Heraclitus

If you did away contradictions or try to dissolve it, you would do away with reality(especially in the world of the language games).If you are guilty of trying to make something that is,which is to make something permanently is,are to erroneously state that things are never to be the same for two moments together so long as they exist,until everything is out of existence again.What we think of reality are not stable objects at all,they are in perpetual transition.

If a individual claims that its glass is half-empty and you claim that its half-full,you are not contradicting the person,but merely only agreeing with the individual.

My rationality. I know that existence exists. I am conscious of it's existence, and even if I do not perceive a portion of it directly at any given time, or ever, I can be certain it exists because my reason concludes that it does. For example, I have never been to New York. However, many others claim that New York does indeed exist, and describe the events that go on there in great detail. It is irrational to beleive that such is an elaborate deception, and thus, it is rational to believe that New York exists.

Nice argument.It is true that we should hold our opinions and expectations of others diffidently,knowing to be fallible.

I like to posit an brief quote of the famous philosopher,AJ Ayer,from the book of "Language,Truth and Logic"-page#171:Just as i must define material things...in terms of their empirical manifestations,so i must define other people in terms of empircal manifestations-that is,in terms of the behavior of their bodies,and ultimately in terms of sense-contents.

A person's sense-contents are "private to himself."Anything that a person suppose(that New York exist as for an example)that there is something exists beyond sense-contents language would be drowning in the quicksand of metaphysical nonsense.It is not a question that i can reason that New York exist or not,it is by what i have to do to establish the truth and falsehood of this statement.That,is,that i have to go to New York City.

 

[Endovior]

I have underlined your statement for the reason that i am puzzled by two extreme positions-Rationalism and Empiricism,that you somehow think they are compatible which they are not.

How can you say that things can be known wholly from pure reason,whithout the aid from the senses and also say that knowledge derives from experience?It is to say that i experience things that are to be something real but i doubt it for the sake that i am not sure because my reason(which is not observing my experiences) tells me otherwise.

I don't claim that things can be known from 'pure' reason. I reject the concept of a priori knowledge. Without anything to start with, reason is useless. However, given that we have senses and can gather information, reason allows us to piece facts together and draw conclusions.

That is a solipsist position.

What is the matter of our miscommunication(which i suspect from my first post in this thread)is that i think you confuse what is "realism" is.Realism,not the philosophical doctrine that universals or abstract terms are objectively true(as opposed to nominalism which i like to use as a way to clarifyfor to rid of confusion)or some kind of claim that material objects exist in themselves,apart from a conscious human being,but a practical outlook rather than imaginary or visionary.Can solipsism coincide with realism?I say yes.

I'm not certain what you're getting at. To clarify, I'm an Objectivist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Yeah,but you sure are not shy of your sophistical virtual substitute as an artifice for your own faith instead of objective reasoning,such as confusing rationalism and empircism as one.

There is no confusion on my part... although perhaps you are confused, as we may define the same words differently.

"Everything is flux"-Heraclitus

If you did away contradictions or try to dissolve it, you would do away with reality(especially in the world of the language games).If you are guilty of trying to make something that is,which is to make something permanently is,are to erroneously state that things are never to be the same for two moments together so long as they exist,until everything is out of existence again.What we think of reality are not stable objects at all,they are in perpetual transition.

If a individual claims that its glass is half-empty and you claim that its half-full,you are not contradicting the person,but merely only agreeing with the individual.

That's not what I'm saying. My position is that nothing unreal exists. Things which do not exist, do not exist, and have no effect on objective reality. No information can be gained from a nonexistent observer, and nothing that does not exist can be observed. The fact that things are changing is irrelevant, here... at no point does something which does not exist affect anything that does. The fact that something may not have existed at one point, and will not exist in the future is meaningless in the present... so long as it exists now, it exists, and has an effect on the world. But once it has ceased to exist, it no longer does.

Nice argument.It is true that we should hold our opinions and expectations of others diffidently,knowing to be fallible.

I like to posit an brief quote of the famous philosopher,AJ Ayer,from the book of "Language,Truth and Logic"-page#171:Just as i must define material things...in terms of their empirical manifestations,so i must define other people in terms of empircal manifestations-that is,in terms of the behavior of their bodies,and ultimately in terms of sense-contents.

A person's sense-contents are "private to himself."Anything that a person suppose(that New York exist as for an example)that there is something exists beyond sense-contents language would be drowning in the quicksand of metaphysical nonsense.It is not a question that i can reason that New York exist or not,it is by what i have to do to establish the truth and falsehood of this statement.That,is,that i have to go to New York City.

Not necessarily. It would be ridiculous to believe that so many people would invent such an elaborate fiction as the existence of New York City. Based on such testimony, one can be reasonably certain that New York exists. Of course, there IS a difference between reasonably certain and utterly certain. I cannot be completely certain until I go there. But given that such a deception would be impossible to execute in the real world (for example, if New York did not exist, someone would go there, determine the truth, and report it), the certainty I get from second-hand information is only slightly lesser then the certainty I get from first-hand information.

 

[Bill3000]

Why does this thread exist? Has anyone responding even taken a philosophy course? Philosophy is far more than simply "deep questions" - it's not something that a mere amateur can hope to have a rigorous answer of. It's like having a science thread with people who don't know science outside of pop science (e.g. the dumb layman's interpretations which tend to be misleading and are not true answers.)

Mind you, I'm an amateur as well; though my point still stands. However, if people posting in this thread prove me wrong, then my complaint will subside. I don't mean to insult anyone here - just explain that pop philosophy (and pop science) is at least, pointless, and at most, harmful.

 

[C~G]

Bill3000, you are so wrong.

I have taken philosophy course and IMHO they are full of crap.
I wasted childhood and partly younghood totally with eastern and western philosophers until I read Schopenhauer and above all Wittgenstein.

Philosophy isn't science even though part of it can be used in science as a tool. Philosophy is art of language that can be mastered even by amateurs since we are all born with the gift of it.
It's native tongue of everyone.

BTW with your logic we could never discuss about anything since we aren't up to par discuss politics, economics etc. in this forum.

From Wittgensteinian point of view this whole board is just one big language game but he also said something else.

A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

[Fifty]

While I disagree with Bill that philosophy shouldn't be discussed by non-philosophers, I do agree that it is a highly technical discipline and it is important for people to realize that anything we nonphilosophers talk about with philosophy is largely superficial. For nonphilosophers, discussion of philosophy often involves no more than what some philosophers call "sophomoric skeptical posturing", which I think could definiitely be said of this thread, as well as others that I've seen. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, but it should be acknowledged. If these superficial discussions can lead people to an interest in real philosophy, they are even beneficial.

@C~G: I find it odd that you didn't feel Wittgenstein was properly treated by whatever philosophy department you attended. Philosophers today acknowledge Quietism as critically important, one of the two most important movements of 20th century philosophy, although it is true that philosophy departments have taken much of a turn towards naturalism. One of the most annoying myths about philosophy is that it gives a rat's ass about Post-Modernism, which thank God is not true. I also don't think you can reliably say it is a waste of time to study philosophers who you don't agree with, if for no other reason than to become aware of competing theories to Wittgensteinian systems and to learn the philosophical background to Wittgenstein and Schopenhaur's development.

 

[warpus]

Because I don't will reality... reality exists independent of myself and my desires. If reality was subject to my will, it'd be different then it is.

An electron, when unobserved, exists as a probability wave. When an observer, such as yourself, observes it, the probability wave collapses into a specific point.

Reality appears to be very dependent on the observer.

 

[C~G]

@C~G: I find it odd that you didn't feel Wittgenstein was properly treated by whatever philosophy department you attended.

I meant that I read philosophy before high school age. In high school Wittgenstein wasn't appreaciated (possibly teacher's fault) while I found him mostly because I was interested about the works of finnish philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright.

Of course, in university and such Wittgenstein is very properly treated.

One of the most annoying myths about philosophy is that it gives a rat's ass about Post-Modernism, which thank God is not true.

Post-modernism is in my opinion critical understanding the most important think about philosophical thought: Language and how it interacts with reality within human realm of thought and society.

I also don't think you can reliably say it is a waste of time to study philosophers who you don't agree with, if for no other reason than to become aware of competing theories to Wittgensteinian systems and to learn the philosophical background to Wittgenstein and Schopenhaur's development.

I would suggest person that he first reads philosophy from classical era to the modern age.
When person has read Wittgenstein he can burn the other books, since they don't matter anymore unless it's for amusement or for use certain theory as specific tool for specific problem.

 

[Bill3000]

I have taken philosophy course and IMHO they are full of crap.
I wasted childhood and partly younghood totally with eastern and western philosophers until I read Schopenhauer and above all Wittgenstein.

I understand your point here. I'm taking a philosophy course myself, (I'm a Biomedical Engineering and Physics major - I've never taken a philosophy course before) and it focuses almost completely on Wittgenstein. Before I thought philosophy was completely useless, since it didn't seem rigorous at all, but now I've learned differently.

Philosophy isn't science even though part of it can be used in science as a tool. Philosophy is art of language that can be mastered even by amateurs since we are all born with the gift of it. It's native tongue of everyone.

I know philosophy isn't a science - it's a tool. However, a tool can be used improperly, usually by not being trained correctly. This is my point. For example, most people don't know how to rationally argue well - if we did, politics would be sane. The internet wouldn't need the rulse for debating and there wouldn't be any closed threads. of course, this ideal case does not exist.

BTW with your logic we could never discuss about anything since we aren't up to par discuss politics, economics etc. in this forum.

I pretty much have the same opinion with those subjects as I do with philosophy. I find discussions with a lack of experience as a whole to be unproductive and a waste of time. However, forums can sometimes have experts in those fields, even though they would usually still argue with the inexperienced. It's just dissapointing as a whole for the state of public conversation.

While I disagree with Bill that philosophy shouldn't be discussed by non-philosophers, I do agree that it is a highly technical discipline and it is important for people to realize that anything we nonphilosophers talk about with philosophy is largely superficial. For nonphilosophers, discussion of philosophy often involves no more than what some philosophers call "sophomoric skeptical posturing", which I think could definiitely be said of this thread, as well as others that I've seen. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, but it should be acknowledged. If these superficial discussions can lead people to an interest in real philosophy, they are even beneficial.

That's probably a more moderate point of view of mine, I guess. I have just been so tired by various debates on various forums, whether it be online, debates on the news, and the like, that I have become so skeptical as to have the radical position that I have - that people should not argue about the subjects that they are not experienced in. ...then again, I guess if I looked at it logically, it isn't a good thing to do, considering that could mean that all conversations would cease. However, I still consider inexperienced conversations pointless and a waste of time, even if it can be useful as a form of recreation or socialization.

 

[C~G]

I know philosophy isn't a science - it's a tool. However, a tool can be used improperly, usually by not being trained correctly. This is my point.

Yeah, I understand your point.
You're saying that we shouldn't take these philosophical considerations in this forum so seriously compared to philosophy practiced example with real science.

I find discussions with a lack of experience as a whole to be unproductive and a waste of time. However, forums can sometimes have experts in those fields, even though they would usually still argue with the inexperienced. It's just dissapointing as a whole for the state of public conversation.

Have to kind of agree here. But I have found forums a way to learn things you don't know and teach others what you know. Especially I like that there are experience/inexperienced folks along with all kinds of nationalities.

I have just been so tired by various debates on various forums, whether it be online, debates on the news, and the like, that I have become so skeptical as to have the radical position that I have - that people should not argue about the subjects that they are not experienced in. ...

However, I still consider inexperienced conversations pointless and a waste of time, even if it can be useful as a form of recreation or socialization.

What I have noticed in Internet debates that whether you have knowledge about subject or not, the debate is quite useless. It's mostly for amusement and if you feel you don't get your point across the net and get nothing out of it, there's no point to discuss.
Sometimes in internet discussions I want to press certain point which usually is rather specified. Example in this thread I'm not really up to talking about general philosophy since I have been in real debates about these subjects in real world, but I might take a point (example yours now) which I want to address.

In overall these discussions take quite lot of time and energy and the result quite often isn't worth it.

I guess we're just killing some time.

 

[Fifty]

I meant that I read philosophy before high school age. In high school Wittgenstein wasn't appreaciated (possibly teacher's fault) while I found him mostly because I was interested about the works of finnish philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright.

OK, that makes much more sense.

Post-modernism is in my opinion critical understanding the most important think about philosophical thought: Language and how it interacts with reality within human realm of thought and society.

Eh? Post-Modernism has precious little insightful things to say about those language. It is a undisputed fact among real academic philosophers (including philosophers of language) that post-modernism has very little to do with mainstream philosophy in any timeperiod. In fact, many philosophers are very very tired of the "myth of the post-modern academy". You, as a Wittgenstein fan, should at least know that Quietism was far far far far far more influential for the role of language than post-modernism.

Hmm? There is extensive commentary on Wittgenstein and many competing viewpoints. In fact, the vast majority of present-day philosophers are naturalists in the tradition of Quine rather than Wittgenstein. You should at least read Quine and the naturalistic response to Wittgenstein before you pronounce him as the man who single-handedly ended philosophy. Quietists, additionally, do not advocate the abandonment of philosophy, but rather studying its history and methods without the idea that you will come to a definite answer to philosophical questions.