/lit/ - Literature

How much background in philosophy does someone need to understand the works of the "analytic" philosophers like Russell, Wittgenstein, etc.?

As someone with a background in pure math, these works seem interesting to me, however, I don't know the extent to which they require knowledge of older philosophical works to be understood, like some other philosophers, who write in response to someone (who wrote in response to someone else, and so on.)

>>4823874
Uhh the problem is that I've not read such novel so far. The dream would be a clear style of Wittgenstein or Russell but I am aware of the differences between novels and theirs works. There is some common denominator with my expectations and Kundera's "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting" or Kawabata's "The Master of Go"; both have somewhat distanced narration and quite austere style. While reading I had an impression of watching solidly made mechanism, from which emanated some sort of intellectual calmness. Kundera seemed to me but a little too banal and quickly I got tired of constantly orbiting around the eroticism in sentimental way. I hope it will help m8 :+).

and that's actually all i have right now.

i hope you've gotten a bit of a laugh out of these. remember, you can do your part to make a better, brighter /lit/. we don't always have to be edgy pseudo-intellectuals; sometimes we can just discuss literature.