WITTGENSTEIN PART 1 STEPHEN MULHALL 

That's what I have read, Matthew Pendleton.

Ha ha, not much!

Indeed. I also think that if people only read the English translation it's easier to fall for the "orthodox reading", which is of course heavily influenced by the strong positivism of early analytic philosophy; most clear is the proclivity to read it through Russell's view on denoting, rather than Frege's, the latter which is what Wittgenstein clearly adheres to - Sense and Reference (Sinn und Bedeutung). There are simply plenty of instances where the English translation is misleading when compared to the German original when it comes to the differences and nuances between these technical terms. To borrow from the so called "later" Wittgenstein (which I believe to be a faulty apprehension, due to the ideological commitment underlying analytic philosophy/positivism and that it's rather a case more of the same, but with more intensity), it seems that Wittgenstein seems to want to express (especially looking to for example his lecture on ethics), namely, that the language game of Russel and the logical positivists is stifling and simply unable to cope with that which transcends the empirical and, in a physicalist sense, empirical realism and verificationism. In Russell's terms it makes no sense if there's no empirical (and historically present) referent and Wittgenstein seems to say exactly that, that these transcendent things are in that sense, nonsense (macht keinen Sinn - they aren't empirical as they lack a clear, referent that may be grasped/apprehended), but is not nonsensical (aber ist nicht unsinnig), in the otherwise usual apprehension/sense of being utterly meaningless garbage as such. I'm writing about this in a short paper on Wittgenstein at the moment.

@@NorthenTasawwuf Thank you. That is a very important nuance. "Heaven" and "Hell" may be separated by a small but significant nuance of perception.

It intuitively strikes me that Plato is correct in asserting "Forms" or categories for things such as Beauty. How does anyone even have a concept of beauty, i don't think it can be explained away by just saying: "Its pleasing to the eye, so it aids in survival or something like that." Beauty does seem to hold a property, or a form that is coherent in everyone's mind, even if we may differ in our levels or degrees of judging beauty. I would agree with you that beauty is in the mind, but the painting triggers the response, and this is where Plato would say that the "Form" of beauty is evoked.

I have achieved a mild-sense-understanding of your reply. I am intrigued, the fact that your reply is three years old gives me no hope of a "layman's terms" reply.

So the painting does not contain "beauty", it evokes a sense of beauty if the observer senses "beauty" in the painting. In other words; "beauty" is a mental description of the painting and has no real physical properties. Seems simple enough.

@@jamespotts8197that sounds exactly like David Hume's inversion of reasoning explained by Daniel Dennett

+Eugene Liu no.

It's like lots of pure research, it's difficult to quantify the benefits until a technician takes the output and transforms into something practical. China has simply copied the philosophy of the West... look at legal, commerical and other manifestations ALL underpinned by earlier philosophical discussion. Ethics etc etc. I'm guessing you don't understand what philosophy is about, you are suffering Chinese cultural pragmatism.

Why do you say that?