Philosophical theories, he suggests, are attempts to answer questions that are not really questions at all (they are nonsense), or to solve problems that are not really problems. He says in proposition 4.003 that:
Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.
这个文章是老维想说哲学家（包括他自己）说的那些都是nonsense 。the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all。
但是哲学家的任务是什么呢？“Philosophers, then, have the task of presenting the logic of our language clearly. This will not solve important problems but it will show that some things that we take to be important problems are really not problems at all. The gain is not wisdom but an absence of confusion.
现在你明白你说的
“虽然你懂的根本算不了哲学，但人家老维说的也不是你。人家说的是那些语言论以前的西方哲学。 ”
的逻辑缺陷是什么了吧。
他说”nonsense，not problems at all“= 他说语言论以前的西方哲学不是哲学？。
即便这个成立，难道等于说中国哲学就是哲学了？
==========================
文章原话：
Wittgenstein’s aim seems to have been to show up as nonsense the things that philosophers (himself included) are tempted to say.
(你从这里开始引用）Philosophical theories, he suggests, are attempts to answer questions that are not really questions at all (they are nonsense), or to solve problems that are not really problems. He says in proposition 4.003 that:
Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.
Philosophers, then, have the task of presenting the logic of our language clearly. This will not solve important problems but it will show that some things that we take to be important problems are really not problems at all. The gain is not wisdom but an absence of confusion. This is not a rejection of philosophy or logic. Wittgenstein took philosophical puzzlement very seriously indeed, but he thought that it needed dissolving by analysis rather than solving by the production of theories. The Tractatus presents itself as a key for untying a series of knots both profound and highly technical.
http://theory.people.com.cn/n/2012/1126/c40531-19700538.html
他提出语言问题，否定了传统哲学的本体论与形而上学研究。
这很了不起，是西方哲学的一大进步。
但这种进步还相当有限。
因为语言问题，本质是思维问题。
哲学家不可能通过分析词语概念来实现对“真实”的理解。
原因很简单：任何一个语言现象，都是按照某种思维组织起来的。所用的思维已经决定了一个人只能说出并理解它的思维中存在的东西。
比如捞鱼，你的网眼的大小已经决定了网的运行速度，而这个速度则决定了你能捕到什么样的鱼。
西方的线型思维：注定追求点的确定性，又注定被一个确定点的惯性所驱使，沿着一根线运动。这种运动在科技方面威力巨大，但在哲学方面则相当软弱。
老维说以往对真实的探索都没有意义。这句话本身很有力量，但可惜，他也一样致力于捕捉这种真实。这就是线型思维的典型特征，他们的思维必然假定：有这样一个点，就必有其起源，必有其归宿。
而这种假定的基础在哪里？西方哲学家们似乎多把它当成公理。
但其实，不过是特定思维的投射。一个简单的例子，语言中的时态就是一种思维，它要求说话者采取一个固定点，从这个固定点出发来确定过去现在未来。这种切分式的思维在哲学上，在追求真实的问题上，对西方哲学家来说，就是致命的。他们看不到另一个视角：没有时间，只有空间的视角。
俺也不用论证说另一个视角看到的必然是真实的，只需要指出另一个视角的存在。只要不同的视角存在，你意识不到，你就不可能看到“真实”（整体）。
“俺也不用论证说另一个视角看到的必然是真实的，只需要指出另一个视角的存在。只要不同的视角存在，你意识不到，你就不可能看到“真实”（整体）。”
自己都不知道自己在说什么。。。
要对应着说，从分析到综合。胡子眉毛一把抓，混在一起说就是一团乱。。。
俺强调过了：
线型思维在科技与开拓方面无比税利。所以你支持的，俺不见得反对。明白？
但在对付哲学的根本问题时则象一只要抓住自己尾巴的猫。但显然这部分你还搞不清。
所以，谢谢回贴：）
不发表意见或者不直接坦率地表述，而是喜欢使用修辞手段，比如隐喻类比等等，一个直言不讳，一个拐弯抹角。
在推理上，循环思维重归纳而不重演绎，从特殊到一般循环转圈，缺乏终极追问。线性思维用的是演绎推理，从一般到特殊，从抽象到具体。喜欢对世界终极追问，终极关怀，寻找本体。。
再进一步说，循环思维源于农耕文明的周期运作，24气节，60甲子等等都是一种循环思维。。。
我刚才说过了，中国的思维是农耕文明的思维，对追究终极问题没啥兴趣，而哲学正是关于终极问题的思考，
所以中国离哲学思考有点远。当然老子的道德经还是很厉害的。不过也只是朴素的辩证。
西式精准的逻辑思维没学会呀
美国每四年选一次总统，每年重复过同样的节日，人造卫星一直循环往复 … 这和坦率不坦率有什么关系？演译和归纳和循环又有什么必然关系？24气节，60甲子这种文化如何导致了什么样的不好的结果？
中国人不仅仅是拐弯抹角，更能直言不讳 - 不知道你从哪里得到的印象。 另外，直言不讳就优于拐弯抹角吗？
Philosophical theories, he suggests, are attempts to answer questions that are not really questions at all (they are nonsense), or to solve problems that are not really problems. He says in proposition 4.003 that:
https://iep.utm.edu/wittgens/
虽然你懂的根本算不了哲学，但人家老维说的也不是你。人家说的是那些语言论以前的西方哲学。
而俺的帖子的主要目的，就是分析为啥老维也有局限。
跟泛泛而谈的东西方思维没有关系。你就不要小敏感了。
不服，就去论证老维错了。
没那个本事，就安安静静地待着。
老维强调人类语言的无力和极限，所以他强调可以说的都可以说清楚；不可说的那就保持沉默。
先说说你引的这一段话。首先你忘了读他上面一句，而这个恰恰是你逻辑出问题的关键。
这个文章是老维想说哲学家（包括他自己）说的那些都是nonsense 。the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all。
但是哲学家的任务是什么呢？“Philosophers, then, have the task of presenting the logic of our language clearly. This will not solve important problems but it will show that some things that we take to be important problems are really not problems at all. The gain is not wisdom but an absence of confusion.
现在你明白你说的
“虽然你懂的根本算不了哲学，但人家老维说的也不是你。人家说的是那些语言论以前的西方哲学。 ”
的逻辑缺陷是什么了吧。
他说”nonsense，not problems at all“= 他说语言论以前的西方哲学不是哲学？。
即便这个成立，难道等于说中国哲学就是哲学了？
==========================
文章原话：
Wittgenstein’s aim seems to have been to show up as nonsense the things that philosophers (himself included) are tempted to say.
(你从这里开始引用）Philosophical theories, he suggests, are attempts to answer questions that are not really questions at all (they are nonsense), or to solve problems that are not really problems. He says in proposition 4.003 that:
Philosophers, then, have the task of presenting the logic of our language clearly. This will not solve important problems but it will show that some things that we take to be important problems are really not problems at all. The gain is not wisdom but an absence of confusion. This is not a rejection of philosophy or logic. Wittgenstein took philosophical puzzlement very seriously indeed, but he thought that it needed dissolving by analysis rather than solving by the production of theories. The Tractatus presents itself as a key for untying a series of knots both profound and highly technical.
你真的是学理工的？
一个线，另一个就是圈，天天绕啊绕。