Well, W seemed to think that philosophy was not optional -- it was both inevitable and disastrous. Lenin (maybe) and Dietzgen (just guessing here) seem to have thought one might study it the way one might do theology, from the outside, as a matter of choice, to refute its errors, and from a better perspective than it offered. Or not study it it. W didn't think we have a better perspective (although there was one), that we had to return to it obessively, and that the point of doing it is toi get oneself free of the need to do it, to "shew [Brit spelling] the fly the way out of the fly bottle." However, W's is indeed a sort of "end of philosophy" view -- like Lenin's, Marx's, Engels's, Hegel's. And Heidegger's too. All in different ways, of course.
--- uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> Wittgenstein
> > thinks philosophy is a mistake -- a bad but very
> > hard- to-avoid pattern of thought the main purpose
> of
> > engaging in which is to think one's way out of.
>
> This reminds me of Lenin who cited Dietzgen with
> approval: 'Now, in order to
> follow the true path, without being led astray by
> all the religious and
> philosophical gibberish, it is necessary to study
> the falsest of all false
> paths (der Holzweg der Holzweg), philosophy.'
> (Materialism and
> Empirio-criticism) :-)
>
> Ulhas
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail