/lit/ - Literature

>ends philosophy

This photo pisses me off
>woah look at me, le quirky analytic philosopherman! Look at my eccentric countenance, don’t you wonder what wild and wonderful things I’m cooking up in my head? Are you not mystified and intrigued by my aloof expression?

>>23201653
>muh language games

>>23126334
>Be me
>Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein
>chilling in my Norvegian hut
>what the fuck is an “Aristotle” and a “dyal electic” lmao
>bored as fuck
>first time philosophying
>realize most of these retards are making shit up
>get bored again and go fight in Italy
>write a useless book that trolls metaphysicians
>blow the socks off some old anglotards
>mfw I sperg all over philosophy and accidentally solve it lmao

Huuja kuujuja en dooloo en ropslaw klame da hoo-yongo.

>>23088522
>

This guy is such a hack that he tried to dismiss Gödel's incompleteness theorems (one of the most profound results in mathematical logic and foundations) from having read only the abstract alone. This faggot and his master, Russell, got so BTFOd by Gödel it's not even funny.

This guy is the sheldon cooper of philosophy, a hack who tried so hard to encapsulate the quirkyness and arrogance of what's expected by the common view of philosopher, he molded himself into a pathetic caricature who peddles obfuscation for depth.
Anyone who specializes in his garbage is officially retarded and will try their hardest to disguise that fact

What's the best translation there is? In the Gallimard version (in French) they criticized the Russel version for having lost much of the meaning through translating to the English language. What to do?

Witt-bros, I haven't read P.I. but I've been reflecting on this saying for a while and I think I'm starting to get it. He's saying that differing world views are mutually unintelligible because of differing perceptions, right? If not please explain it

Why do people do philosophy anymore? Don't they know that he already solved it?

>>22605570
You are just becoming self aware, lots of people go through it but probably not enough. Start abstracting these ideas out onto other people, realize they are having the same thoughts. For most this happens naturally after they fall blindly in love with someone and then realize they blew it because self absorbed.

I was probably a tad off the mark with Eco but you probably will enjoy it, I mistook your OP. Picrel is fun when you are in such a mindset but sort of like wallowing in your own depression.

>The guy who solved philosophy enjoyed hard boiled detective fiction and pulp magazines
How I Learned To Stop Being A Pseud Poser And Love Being A Reader

What did /lit/ study in uni?

>t. double majored in math and foreign languages.

Who should I be familiar with before reading Wittgenstein?

>writes a book claiming to complete philosophy
>refuses to elaborate
>dies
>posthumously elaborates on how wrong he was
Is there a more based philosopher than Witty?

>>22065476
*blocks your path*

What's the necessary background one needs before tackling Wittgenstein? I've decided to go deep into philosophy of language and it seems like he's the final boss of the subject, so I'd like to be prepared before reading him.

>>21983327
>>21983395
>>21983405
>mogs her

Someone want to share some remarks on the Tractatus?

Has there ever been an attempt to synthasise Wittgenstein and Kant's 'Thing in itself'? As in language that exists independantly to human experience? Such reactions as laughing to something amusing or squeeling when injured. Something that happens without any contact with human society or experience? Would that be as close you could get?