Was he a philosopher at all or just a linguist?
2007-08-13 09:08:31 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
He was not mainstream... he was a confused man trapped by definitions...!
PS: By "not mainstream" I mean he was not like his teacher Russell, or many other really absolutely influential guys... he was respected and is respected somewhat, but not too many people take him seriously anymore!
2007-08-13 09:19:18 · answer #1 · answered by ikiraf 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Thoroughly mainstream. Indeed, he helped re-define where the mainstream in philosophy thereafter ran.
Furthermore, to say that he was "just a linguist" is to insist too much on the disciplinary boundaries that make academic life easy but have no other real function. He was a lover of wisdom. That is the case. And the world is ....
2007-08-14 02:36:23 · answer #2 · answered by Christopher F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would say he was not mainstream, and yes he was a philosopher, his Philosophical Investigations and its presentation of "language-games" is significant,
game in the context text of making moves, which cause a reaction, when someone speaks to you, it is often as much the way they say it, as what they say, and the specific words they use, that causes your reaction and response, so the words only have meaning, and take their meaning, from their use and interpretation
2007-08-13 13:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by dlin333 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋