/lit/ - Literature

>"natural"

>>4671276
>normalfag scum
Not him, but I don't think /lit/ is filled with kissless virgins like maybe on some other boards. That's kind of the reason the other anon got all the questions when he said he "met a girl for the first time," it's obviously a bit of an anomaly for people here. I think you're on the wrong board...

Is language necessarily public?

>>4568544
No, the nonsensical definition occurs when philosophy happens. When people use the words fine, live their lives from day to day, and one day they stop and say "what is free will anyway?".

Perfect example of how philosophy is a disease of language.

>>4535642
I agree, go in with Wittgenstein, OP.

>>4511831
>Now read something of value, like Analytic philosophy.
You're quite the jester, Anonymous.

One bump before I return Quine's book and go with the online one.

>>4346553
Well then it depends how it's used. Stop infecting language.

>>4326243
Then shut up

Are the Tractatus and Investigations incompatible?

Well /lit/, I just finished Philosophical Investigations and it kind of blew my mind.

But I'd like to ask, who are Wittgenstein's true heirs? I want to read the works of some hardcore post-Wittgenstein Wittgensteinians quietists. Through a bit of research it seems the main ones are Gilbert Ryle (Concept of Mind), John McDowell (Mind and World), and John Searle. Can anyone vouch for these guys?

Witt Happens
with a pic of Ludwig

#FIERCELOVER

>>3780712
Is that so?

>>3430301
How can one not have 'head for math'?

Math is the simplest thing, as there is no errors in mathemathics. Doing math is not about 'doing' something per se, as in doing or writing something logical, it already exists before you do it, and you therefore just see HOW logic works, you are an observer you might say.

Mathemathics is to me the key to some of the most profound understanding of how things relate to eachother. It doesn't teach you about the world, it shows what kind of world we live in. Sorry if i come off as a numerology nut, i despise that sort of thinking.

Anyways, what you're doing in mathematics is very special, and there are some nice parallels to Alice in Wonderland. Keep in mind that mathematics in that time was a very turbulent field of thought, imagine knowing about complex numbers (numbers that don't 'exist', or are 'real') or calculations in 3 (or more) dimensions, without having the ABILITY to do it, as they did not have computers.

Some fields of mathematics, that they knew about at that time, only got accessible 20-30 years ago because of strong computers.

Imagine how much mathematics at that time are similar to the entire concept of Alice in Wonderland, as they began to do non-Euclid geometry. This is thoughts which only makes sense when you go into some hardcore physics, as math can describe the world better than we can see it, and they had very very little chance to actually see the world compared to how much they could calculate.

>ill stop ranting now
>i might show some links later tho

>>3416190
Uh, I don't know really, he mentions God as our Lord and the creator of man, as Locke also does. I don't like to talk about isms in relation to religion, everything tend to turn to shit afterwards.
Funny thing, we think we base our human rights (those universal laws that African countries break all the time) on secular ground, even though they're based on Locke's thinking, which had a foundation in God.

When we're talking about Hobbes in relation to Kafka, we should really look at all three of the natural law philosophers, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

If yous summarize a lot of what Rousseau says, it's; what does it mean to obey yourself? Which Kafka, to me at least, explores and perhaps shows us something about ourself, or a possible future for ourselves.

Back to Rousseau: As a member of the State, each individual is obligated to obey the law; as a member of the Sovereign each remains free, because you cannot bind yourself, and that is why Rousseau removes any possibility that the Sovereign is limited by an untouchable constitution (Hobbes's Sovereign) or a more fundamental natural law (Locke's property). The law making Sovereign must bind itself, Rousseau says, precisely in order to show that such an act is logically impossible.

>>3237208
Nietzsche is sort of a guilty pleasure for me, I prefer Kierkegaards existentialism over his, but Nietzsche writings can be very lively and interesting.

Kierkegaard was one of the few philosophers Wittgenstein had read, not because that makes Kierkegaard necessary to read before Wittgenstein.

>>3134863
This...

Sound like the "ontological" conception of the proposition in the tractatus.

Post what philosopher, mathematician, scientist, artist or writer had the most beautiful life. Jason Pollock for example. Me, I think Wittgenstein tops the charts.

>>2889306

I'd hit it.

is it wrong to love poetry more than literature?

Poetry gets to the heart of the matter instantly, while novels give you so much fluff and baggage to wade through before you get to the good stuff