/lit/ - Literature

>>16015246
...

>>16013320
>>16013329
Pic related disagrees

Also Chompsky says if language wasnt pre-encoded you could never learn it

>>16002778
>Who is the greatest
*blocks your path*

redpill me on him. i constantly see him shilled as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, but no one goes into the why or how. nor does he get talked about as much as the 19th century ones.

Can we all agree he solved philosophy?

>>15955039
He did only one good thing

...

...

>if you dont have anything nice to say dont say anything at all

>>15286430
Shut the fuck up.

there's no beating him (b/c he'll beat you first lol)

>Nothing is more important than the formation of fictional concepts, which teach us at last to understand our own.

Kill yourself.

Now that I have finally understood the Philosophical Investigations, the Blue Book, Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics and On Certainty, I feel empty inside. Wittgenstein was a great destroyer but not much of a constructor. He takes away without replacing anything. Where do I go from here? What do I read? Poetry? Is scientific philosophy truly impossible?

>>14847378
He definitely shows the entire analytic aedificium to be built on naught. I'm sorry, but you have to go back.

>If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Stupid question.
There are vibrations in the air even if no one is there.
There is no auditory conscious experience if there is no one there to receive the vibrations.

Whatever you define "sound" as tells you if you fall on the first or the second definition.
All of philosophy is just a more complicated version of this problem. If you truly wanted answers you'd just define your terms better to allow them to be answered.

All you need is Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief

>talking about "outside" of space and time

Shut up.

it seems that language is inherently reductive of reality. i'm not saying that takes away from it's artistic potential––all mediums have this characteristic: paiting, music, film, etc.
like that meme to use more and more descriptive, technical words to make any ordinary situation seem weird. ie, smoking weed, inhaling burning flowers, absorbing thc through the membrane of the lungs and taking in other combustible materials.... that expanding brain meme shit.
things lose any artistic integrity when they are said that way. the mind doesn't really work that way. fleeting images leave much more of an impression than any technical description. and the technicalities usually add nothing and can't be broken down any further; after all, they are still words with a concept behind them that conveys meaning. phonemes alone are meaningless.

philosophy books to learn more about language? pic related? i don't know much about wittgenstein, but i heard from a friend he talks about something like this.

>>14368450
>>14374562
Is that the so-called Deep Philospher Gaze he is trying to emulate here? Wittgenstein was a pseudointellectual, but it surely came naturally to him. Seems like anglos are yet again castrated in something most people understand on an intuitive level.

is he, dare i say it, /myguy/?

Can you just jump into philosophical investigations or is there anything I should read beforehand?

>Try your luck, worm.

>>13544596
sorry, posted the wrong picture