Omnipotence impossible?

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was a text of great importance for the positivists. The Tractatus introduced many doctrines which later influenced logical positivism, including the conception of philosophy as a "critique of language," and the possibility of drawing a theoretically principled distinction between intelligible and nonsensical discourse.

Philosophy must not be reduced to linguistic analysis or limited to those statments which can be proven. Wittgenstein himself later repudiated or modified his position form the tractatus and never considered himself a logical positivist. A discussion of meaning of terms is appropriate in clarifying communication but when it becomes the entire process, philosophy as rational specualtion about questions which are important but have no definitive answers is lost.

Analytic philosophy, linguistic analysis and logical positivism nearly destroyed philosophy as an independent meaningful endeavor. Logic and science are the stepchildren of philosophy not the other way around.

Philosophy must not be reduced to linguistic analysis or limited to those statments which can be proven. Wittgenstein himself later repudiated or modified his position form the tractatus and never considered himself a logical positivist. A discussion of meaning of terms is appropriate in clarifying communication but when it becomes the entire process, philosophy as rational specualtion about questions which are important but have no definitive answers is lost.

Analytic philosophy, linguistic analysis and logical positivism nearly destroyed philosophy as an independent meaningful endeavor. Logic and science are the stepchildren of philosophy not the other way around.

It might be that rational speculation about questions that have no answer is exactly the job for linguistic analysis, so it might be discovered just why the question has no answer. And, perhaps, can have no answer. Here, for instance, is a question that can have no answer; how high is up? It is a child's question. But it might be interesting to consider what it is about that question which makes it unanswerable.

It's not that I don't see what the ideal is, and it's a good ideal. But a person can start trashing anything that isn't easily computable. At some point, it becomes a matter of taste and interpretation. I like much of what gets called "Continental philosophy." Any system that can find no value in it is a system I can find little value in. Of course every philosopher is different. Rorty is a great middleman, who could see the value on both sides. I want both a fork and a spoon, not just one or the other.

...how high is up? It is a child's question. But it might be interesting to consider what it is about that question which makes it unanswerable.

BTW Im surprised questions like the Op are still around, seeing how Aquinas put this to rest centuries ago.

How is your reply connected with my post to which you are ostensibly replying?

Maybe because it doesnt make sense?

BTW Im surprised questions like the Op are still around, seeing how Aquinas put this to rest centuries ago.

For me "omnipotence" is a difficult word to unpack. A person could stretch this word in all sorts of ways.

I don't know. How about the ability to do all -- anything that can be imagined, including that which "transcends" imagination......

Sure it doesn't. But why?

It seems like youre comparing two ideas that are categorically different and inherently ambiguous.

How are you defining 'up'?

Now, suppose all unanswerable questions in philosophy were like that?

Indeed.

It seems we were both testing each other...

I wasn't testing you.

Yes. If you have a certain idea of philosophy, you might very well think so.

Sokal's Hoax

Ha, I am aware of that hoax and lol when I first was aware of it. What can you expect, as a joke rendered, by he who spends most of his life in the cloister halls of academia, without real human experiences under their belt.

Now that was a work of art aimed at a thirsty audience drinking muddy water and giving them just what the wanted. Ha!:whistling:

William

Even though modal logic has revealed the problems with such arguments as in the OP, people still waste time making up all kind of arbitrary other responses to the argument.