... The posthumous scholar dominated analytic philosophy during 1950s-1970s.   He was a pioneer bringing the so-called Linguistic Turn into analytic philosophy. His first bold step in that direction was the "Tractatus". There he held that the investigation into the essence and nature of things is after all conducted by the logical analysis of language.   Subsequently he abandoned the whole idea of the "sublimity of philosophy", i.e. that philosophy is to investigate the language-independent and mind-independent essence of the world. But the method of philosophy, as he later conceived of the subject, is the method of grammatical clarification – to solve philosophical problems by describiing the logico-linguistic structures of our language. And he considered philosophy as an elucidatory(descriptive) activity that contributes to exploring human's faculty of understanding rather than increasing human knowledge. For a while, he transformed the general conception of philosophy and of philosophical method in mainstream analytic philosophy, especially, but not only, in Britain. But after the mid-1970s, his influence waned. The kinds of work and methods that he advocated in philosophy of language were displaced by a theory of meaning for a natural language. Similarly, his methods and preoccupations in philosophy of mind were displaced by the new pseudo-discipline that goes by the misleading name of cognitive science(it is neither scientific nor cognitive).

"I’ll try to articulate what is the core of... the new method that dawned on Wittgenstein as his new philosophy crystallized after 1929.   Philosophy is characterized by its problems, which are not empirical, scientific, problems. They cannot be answered by experiments, and they do not call for new discoveries. They often appear to be questions about the essence or nature of things. But, Wittgenstein argued, they are typically questions in search of a sense, stemming from certain kinds of... conceptual unclarity. And they are to be resolved, or often dissolved, by conceptual clarification..."
        This is [rimarily (but not only) effected by a careful description of the uses of words.   Of course, it is the job of linguists to describe the use of words.   And yet philosophy is not a branch of linguistics!   So what differentiates the two disciplines?   They are driven by very different questions, and the aspects of the uses of words that concern them differ fundamentally.   Conventional grammar (linguistics) will note that a transitive verb must be followed by an expression in the objective (accusative) case.   But philosophical concerns are more akin to noticing that one may not (on pain of talking nonsense) prefix to the designator ‘the North Pole’ the words ‘south-west of’.   For philosophy is concerned with the bounds of sense – in order to clarify problems that arise on the boundaries, or problems that arise when they are transgressed.   Many (but not all) philosophical problems are not answered, but dissolved when one can show that there is something misconceived about the very question asked.   For example, we are prone to ask ‘What is the relation between mind and body?’ or ‘What is the relation between mind and brain?’ – but it may be that when we carefully investigate the use of the word ‘mind’ we shall find that the mind is not a kind of entity that could stand in any kind of relationship to the body or brain.   Similarly, philosophers were prone to wonder what logical propositions describe, or what mathematical propositions describe?   Frege thought that logical propositions describe the most general relationships between thoughts, irrespective of the contents of the thoughts in question.   And he thought that arithmetical propositions describe relationships between numbers (classes of classes).   But Wittgenstein held that careful scrutiny of the uses of logical and mathematical propositions may bring us to realise (and certainly brought Wittgenstein to realise) that these kinds of proposition do not describe anything – that they have a quite different role.
The methods of philosophy are descriptive, but the goal is the dissolution of conceptual puzzles, of conceptual confusions; and the illumination of conceptual categories.   Achievement in philosophy is commonly the realization (and demonstration) that a certain concept is more akin to concepts belonging to one category than to those belonging to another, for example, that understanding is more akin to an ability than to a state of mind; or that a certain concept does not belong to the category to which it superficially appears to belong, for example that to mean something is not an act or activity, or that to see a mental image is not a form of perception, or that to believe is not a mental state.
But one must take care here.   Wittgenstein did not hold that all philosophical problems stem from misleading features of our language.   There are many other sources of conceptual entanglement.   We tend to be mesmerized by science and the methods of science.   So we often try to mimic the procedures of science in philosophical investigation – for example when we invoke so-called inferences to the best explanation in dealing with the puzzles about the ‘existence of other minds’, as if the proposition that other people exist (are persons, ‘have minds’) were a hypothesis.   We have a powerful drive to generalize –   an intellectual disposition that is of the utmost importance in science, where we crave to subsume the maximal range of phenomena under a single law or explanatory theory.   But this disposition, in philosophy, can be the source of extensive confusion, in as much as it leads us to misrepresent conceptual phenomena, to seek for generality where only particularity is appropriate.

copied from http://www.philosophyol.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=3834

Perched upon Marpo Ri hill, 130 meters above the Lhasa valley, the Potala Palace rises a further 170 meters and is the greatest monumental structure in all of Tibet. Early legends concerning the rocky hill tell of a sacred cave, considered to be the dwelling place of the Bodhisattva Chenresi (Avalokiteshvara/Kuan Yin), that was used as a meditation retreat by Emperor Songtsen Gampo in the seventh century AD. In 637 Songtsen Gampo built a palace on the hill. This structure stood until the seventeenth century, when it was incorporated into the foundations of the greater buildings still standing today. Construction of the present palace began in 1645 during the reign of the fifth Dalai Lama and by 1648 the Potrang Karpo, or White Palace, was completed. The Potrang Marpo, or Red Palace, was added between 1690 and 1694; its construction required the labors of more than 7000 workers and 1500 artists and craftsman. In 1922 the 13th Dalai Lama renovated many chapels and assembly halls in the White Palace and added two stories to the Red Palace. The Potala Palace was only slightly damaged during the Tibetan uprising against the invading Chinese in 1959. Unlike most other Tibetan religious structures, it was not sacked by the Red Guards during the 1960s and 1970s, apparently through the personal intervention of Chou En Lai. As a result, all the chapels and their artifacts are very well preserved.

From as early as the eleventh century the palace was called Potala. This name probably derives from Mt. Potala, the mythological mountain abode of the Bodhisattva Chenresi (Avilokiteshvara / Kuan Yin) in southern India. The Emperor Songtsen Gampo had been regarded as an incarnation of Chenresi. Given that he founded the Potala, it seems likely that the hilltop palace of Lhasa took on the name of the Indian sacred mountain. The Potala Palace is an immense structure, its interior space being in excess of 130,000 square meters. Fulfilling numerous functions, the Potala was first and foremost the residence of the Dalai Lama and his large staff. In addition, it was the seat of Tibetan government, where all ceremonies of state were held; it housed a school for religious training of monks and administrators; and it was one of Tibet's major pilgrimage destinations because of the tombs of past Dalai Lamas. Within the White Palace are two small chapels, the Phakpa Lhakhang and the Chogyal Drubphuk; dating from the seventh century, these chapels are the oldest surviving structures on the hill and also the most sacred. The Potala's most venerated statue, the Arya Lokeshvara, is housed inside the Phapka Lhakhang, and it draws thousands of Tibetan pilgrims each day.

作为第五届两岸经贸文化论坛的重要活动，“中华文化的传承与创新”专题研讨会１１日上午紧接着论坛开幕式举行。大陆文化名流余秋雨、于丹与台湾文教界知名人士王邦雄、孙震相继登坛开讲，畅谈发扬光大中华文化，共铸中华文化新的辉煌。
于丹：感悟中国智慧　唤醒文化基因
“观乎人文，以化成天下。”大陆知名学者于丹以《周易》语句开篇，提出文化的意义在于以动词方式“化”入人心，在现代化语境下以民族化方式构建价值体系。“文化基因实际上积淀在血液中、骨髓中，它是一种生活习惯、一种伦理判断”。
于丹认为，对于两岸“同体共生”的同胞而言，如何唤醒人们血液中共同文化基因是当下值得思考的一大课题。感悟中国智慧是一道需要经常做的功课。
她说，健康的文化生态应是“多元的、富于建设性的、生生不息的”。只有传统文明与当代背景融合，东方文明与西方文明沟通，精英文化与大众文化共谋，在现代制度日趋完善前提下，中国文化的核心价值才能得到最充分开发。担任北师大艺术与传媒学院副院长一职的于丹教授建议，两岸有识之士在“为用”层面上重新尊重经典，把它们还原到生态之中，回到它本初面目。“尊重文化传承，但不一定要保持畏惧和膜拜”。 余秋雨：从文本传承到精神传承
余秋雨在题为《从文本传承到精神传承》的演讲中指出，中华文化的世代传承，可以分为“文本传承”和“精神传承”两个层面。文化是精神价值和生活方式的共同体，所有的中国人在文化上存在着共同约定，文化传承最值得关心，同时也是最重要和最难得的，是文本层面、技术层面背后精神价值层面的传承。
“中华文明之所以成为世界上唯一没有湮灭的古文明，主要还是有赖于屈原、司马迁、魏晋名士、唐宋巨匠所延续的精神传承，即君子风范的千年一贯。”
细数近年来通过两岸民间文化交流结交的台湾学者时，余秋雨说，至今清晰记得山中巧遇余光中和他那句非常深刻的话：“五十年的政治割不断五千年的文化。”
“中华文化在今天必须与其他文明相融共处，但它的核心尊严，还在于精神传承。因此，梳理、筛选并普及这种精神传承，是当代世界各华语地区的共同责任。”余秋雨说。
王邦雄：乡土情与文化心统合并行
台湾淡江大学教授王邦雄从茶道中“品”出了两岸文化的互通之理。他认为，发展文化产业，是传承悠久历史文化的一剂“药方”。
“台湾人爱喝普洱茶，大陆人爱喝台湾的乌龙茶，因此‘道’在乌龙、普洱间，这是两岸交流里面最善意的互动，最能够产生生命感情的表现。凭借中华千年文化产业的产销经营，而化为两岸一家的文化产值。”
王邦雄在题为《传统与现代的对话——谈古典今诠的文化产业》的演讲中认为，当前两岸善意互动，观光直航正逐步升温，投资创业也在解冻，透过学术文化的交流，乡土情和文化心统合并行，可以导入当代人心，从而架构出两岸一家的桥梁。
他激动地说：“文化传统中间不仅有现代化的经济效益，更是乡土情与文化心的文化产业，这种有待开发的无形产值，无可计量。”
孙震：省思台湾教育发展
台湾大学校友总会理事长孙震在论坛上省思台湾教育发展，引起了众多嘉宾的共鸣。孙震认为，政府应该给教育“松绑”，学校就会有较大的活力，发挥较大的创意，对传承文化意义重大。
孙震说，回顾过去几十年，台湾大学教育眼下已实现从精英教育向普及教育的转变。他认为，当前台湾教育领域有五方面现象值得注意：大学增加，而学生素质下降；毕业生失业率较高；大学教育普及后，更多人出于求真、求善、求美乃至纯粹为了好玩等各种理由步入大学，一些过去不会选择读大学的人现在愿意接受高等教育；教育经费由个人负担、政府负担还是共同负担的问题；台湾大学虽多，但品质、收费差距较大，增加大学未能化解升学竞争问题。
他说，教育是个人成长与国家发展的重要投资：个人藉教育增益智能，培养健全人格；国家藉教育造就人才，提升科技，发展经济，丰富文化。眼下台湾大学院校超过160所，足以容纳所有想要升学的高中、高职毕业生。然而，大学品质存在较大差距，公私立大学收费高低不同，升学竞争依然激烈，中小学五育并重、教学正常化的理想并未实现。
孙震呼吁，人有不同的禀赋、不同的性向、不同的才华，社会对其组成分子也有不同的需要，社会因此应有不同的标准衡量天下英才。

来源：新华网

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua . There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala . The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia , USA . That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.
But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes, they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America . It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'
It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply, of course, to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag(*汉语中所谓"牛棚") of prisons, which extends across the US.
The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine(*apeased) Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility(*sentiment)? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, without legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land(*pun using) from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties(*details) in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned(*accused) before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency(*rebellion) began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.
Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was never referred to again. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.
The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive(*hardly noticed), out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.
Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things':

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain :
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets! (see note)

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq . I quote Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a powerful visceral(*genuine) description of the bombing of civilians.
I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.
The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden , of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.
The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as "bunker busters". The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.
I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.
'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian; I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society; We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection(*don't give shoot or hanging). We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'
A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a limb. You find no shelter, no protection – unless you lie – in which case of course you've constructed your own protection and, it could be argued, become a politician.
I have referred to death quite a few times in this speech. I shall now quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.

Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body?
Did you close both its eyes?
Did you bury the body?
Did you leave it abandoned?
Did you kiss the dead body?

When we look into a mirror, we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror - for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.
I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon(*should be discharged by) us all. It is in fact mandatory.
If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision, we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

note:
Extract from "I'm Explaining a Few Things" translated by Nathaniel Tarn, from Pablo Neruda: Selected Poems, published by Jonathan Cape, London 1970. Used by permission of The Random House Group Limited.