/lit/ - Literature

Is he worth reading?

2 question here.
1. Did Wittgenstein followed Nominalism?

I've read Ockham's summa logicae, and it felt like the Tractatus of medieval age.
Not only was it similar, but it was also seen as sharing the same idea.
I've listed some of it-
>W tried not to make theory at all, as philosophical theory doesn't exist (in both of wittgenstein)
>Direct mention of Ockham in Tractatus, and the use of Ockham's razor (e.g. 3.328 5.132 5.47321 6.363 on TLP)
>loves logic (for describe)
>An important goal of Ockham is to eliminate ambiguity and confusion in Aristotle's syllogism, Wittgenstein follows the quite a same argument.
The position shown in Tractatus and PI looks like he being massive nominalist.

A little suspicious of this idea is due to one mention in the Philosophical Investigations.
>We are not analyzing a phenomenon (e.g. thought) but a concept (e.g. that of thinking), and therefore the use of a word. So it may look as if what we were doing were Nominalism. Nominalists make the mistake of interpreting all words as names, and so of not really describing their use, but only, so to speak, giving a paper draft on such a description.
This seems to be a big hurdle to this idea, but I thought it can be interpreted as the criticism toward most of philosopher taking only the form of language, not on language as use (Ockham as an example, and Carnap's attitude as well.)
What was his position? Can I interpret him as "Nominalist taking language as usage"?

2. I thought the essential problem of Nominalism made him refuse on accepting it.
What is the biggest weakness or criticism on Nominalism?

>>13173511
Women don’t even enjoy sex physically, what they enjoy is the promised transfer of power, in terms of time and money from the male to the female.
Men not liking foreplay is a spook

>>13134369
Reread what I posted.

>Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Are Forms Real

>you cant know nothing because of original sin

muh razor