/lit/ - Literature

>>12557525
Yeah he thought we couldn't say anything of value about ethics, but I think the part people misunderstand is the fact that he did not relish this fact like the logical positivist and members of the Vienna Circle of his day did.
Or in other words what was said in the original post was correct, but it would be inaccurate to add exclamation marks indicating that Wittgenstein was enthusiastic about such a conclusion. And more importantly, it is why Wittgenstein was never happy and smug with his conclusion is what ultimately proved to be the most important and interesting part of this philosophy

So what rules we base a game on, to which a piece can have moves in, needs to also rely on rules in the first palce, which in turn also has to rely on rules, and so on into regress.
But this doesn't apply to Privatim Language by Wittgenstein right? In denoucning private language all he is saying is that if you believe you can controll (posses) - i.e. beyond being capable to utilize language as a system for a purpose - a language yourself, you are wrong and your language will be inconsistent.
Private Language doesn't have to fail because of a rule having to rely on a rule but rather because language in general is sitational and how it is used more important, than believing a specific word stands for one specific thing, as if baptized.

Where did I brainlet?

>>12105442

>>11833002
No one has mentioned anything about his writing. None of you have read him and just want to shit post. Embarrassing

Define what you mean by individuality and generality. Otherwise the argument is meaningless

>>11705051
Read Russell's essay On Denoting
Read Frege in general. You wont, but you could read his essay On Sense and Nominatum and get some idea

Wittgenstein is going against what is being presented here, specifically, that Russell wants to bring things into logic in order to get around the problem of solipsism. Wittgenstein is against this abuse of logic, and wants it to be left alone

Thats it. You probably will need to know some formal logic to fully understand what is going on but, maybe not if you have some background in mathematics.

/lit/, is there a particular branch of philosophy, or any discipline, that studies how to engage others in debate or dialogue?

When I was younger and studying the Greeks this would come up all the time. Dealing with the supposed division between rhetoric and philosophy would come up continuously and I cant seem to find it after that. There might be some pet theories about how philosophy as a whole has lost its way, like Nietzsche or Heidegger, but what about a general theory on how best to engage each other if what we care about is the truth?

>>11625201
Russell did away with you, and he was the one with a theory of descriptions. You're three steps behind

Who are you quoting?

>>11580538

Just finished 'A Frolic Of His Own' and would like some books regarding the law, fiction only. Please no Grisham or stuff like that.

>>11485824
>>11485827

>>11452633

>>11418680
Well, since I can't convince you that changing the text on a piece of paper doesn't change it into a new object, can I at least sell you on the idea that "changing the text on a piece of paper doesn't change the number of objects that exist"?

Going back to the example of Parchment N, adding a new list item doesn't just create a new list; it destroys the previous list. This is because as soon as that new list item is added, Parchment N is no longer Parchment N. In effect, it becomes Parchment N+1.

Given this, we could anticipate that the list will change, and, rather than adding "Parchment N" to the list, we could add "Parchment N+1" to the list, so that the paper becomes "Parchment N+1" as the addition is made, and the infinite regress is cut off.