Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.15736933 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, 1564812118667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15736933

>>15734882
>the endgame of analytic philosophy was actually derived from continental one
oh no no no we got too cocky anglo bros

>> No.15435375 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15435375

Who is the most important philosopher today and why is it Ludwig Wittgenstein?

>> No.15248078 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15248078

poor Witty didn't have the brains to defeat the genius insights of F. H. Bradley and ended up being retroactively refuted by him

>The denial of the reality of relations does not imply their absolute non-existence; rather, his conclusion is that relations and terms should be conceived as aspects within an all-embracing whole. Instead of ascribing to Bradley the doctrine of internality, it would therefore be better to see him as advocating a ‘holistic’ theory of relations. As against Russell, Bradley was wholly explicit on this fundamental point:

>This is the doctrine for which I have now for so many years contended. Relations exists only in and through a whole which can not [sic] in the end be resolved into relations and terms. ‘And’, ‘together’ and ‘between’, are all in the end senseless apart from such a whole. The opposite view is maintained (as I understand) by Mr. Russell... But for myself, I am unable to find that Mr. Russell has ever really faced the question. (Principles, 2nd edn, Ch. II, additional note 50).

>Interestingly, one philosopher who faced Bradley’s question squarely was Russell’s pupil, Wittgenstein. In his Tractatus he tried to avoid Bradley’s regresses by getting rid of relations. His simple objects do enter into the formation of unified facts, yet no extraneous connecting principle is required:‘In the atomic fact objects hang one in another, like the links of a chain.’ (2.03). The metaphor of a chain, however, provides no real answer to the problem raised by Bradley, especially so in light of the fact that it is all but clear that Wittgenstein’s logico-ontological atoms can be said to possess a form; surely, they differ from Democritean atoms in that they lack material properties (cf. 2.0331 and 2.0232). Moreover, Bradley could still argue that the very idea of two distinct but unrelated objects makes little sense.

>> No.15203290 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15203290

It's his birthday
Say something nice about him

>> No.15193617 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, only_jewish_genius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15193617

>>15184696
>nothing is constant
>our understanding is based on conjectures
you literally can't refute this

>> No.15168792 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15168792

Dear friends, here are links to some philosophy videos. You might find this useful:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jwrpDIM4ZQLPt_TbvsvqOqIAuDUy2W7d/view?usp=sharing


I'm not author by the way, it was given to me by friend. Also, does anyone have epub version of William Morris - News from Nowhere and other writings Penguin edition?

>> No.15022004 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15022004

>>15021943
/lit/ af and /effay/ af, too. Plus he's one of the few big-time philosophers who actually saw combat in the armed forces.

>> No.14950160 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14950160

wittgenstop

>> No.14937528 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14937528

Should the Tractatus be read resolutely or irresolutely? The therapeuticists say that the whole work is just a clever way to get us to see the senselessness of most philosophy but if there really is just one kind of nonsense, how is it possible that a book written in a certain way should tell us anything more than the same book written in any other nonsensical way? There's an unbridgeable explanatory gap on the resolute reading.

Also general Austrian chad philosopher appreciation thread.

>> No.14492024 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14492024

What is the point of Wittgenstein's Beetle on a Box argument?

>> No.14177193 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, E9FAF55C-599A-4473-9363-BFB4D65B0AFB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14177193

where should i start with this motherfucker

>> No.13320448 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13320448

>proceeds to disagree with everything he said over the years

>> No.12545039 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12545039

>>12544186
There are those who believe that it is still relevant to define the essence of things.

>> No.12349222 [View]
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12349222

The team is everything that is based.

>> No.11272057 [View]
File: 265 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11272057

>>11272049
*blocks your path*

>> No.11179478 [View]
File: 265 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11179478

Can I get the opinion of some of you gents on this work?

I've been reading it and I find it a fascinating critique, or even commentary (and of course treatise) on language. I think it's commonly misunderstood, and I don't think it's so difficult. The myth around the book's contents are much more intriguing than what is written in it.

>> No.10867395 [View]
File: 274 KB, 547x800, IMG_2177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10867395

>Sir I must take your duck
>*hands it over*
>And your other duck
>Thats a rabbit

>> No.10762220 [View]
File: 274 KB, 547x800, IMG_2177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10762220

>thought the Tractatus would solve philosophy
What was his fucking problem?

>> No.10708594 [View]
File: 274 KB, 547x800, IMG_2177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10708594

*beats the shit out of your kid*
Pssh, nothin personelle... brainlets

>> No.10678215 [View]
File: 274 KB, 547x800, IMG_2177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10678215

What the fuck was he even talking about? Most other philosophers I know a scant amount of information about their big ideas and their work but I do not know anything about Witty except it has to do with language and he was an analytic.

>> No.10543906 [View]
File: 265 KB, 547x800, Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10543906

>>10531876
>implying it wasn't pic related or William Gass
zozzle

>>10532788
Kosmos is his best imo

>> No.10395832 [View]
File: 265 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10395832

>dismantles philosophy
>deconstructs philosophy as a simple problem of language and logic
>people still talk about philosophy

embarrassing

>> No.10382621 [View]
File: 265 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10382621

>>10376026
Try again

>> No.10297330 [View]
File: 265 KB, 547x800, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10297330

>>10297321
swerve, virgin



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]