/lit/ - Literature

leave the worst interpretation of Wittgenstein ever conceived to me

>>10222774
Smarter than you

>>10222778
>implying he didn't intentionally misinterpret wittgenstein

>Being is bliss with moderation of the passions

how is that brainlet? he's basically a buddhist

>>10222801
buddhists aka extra brainlet

>>10222774
I've come for that big gold brainlet belt, Epicurus.

>>10222814
Not to be a meme but was this dude high when he said this. What the fuck is this word salad even supposed to mean.

*a new challenger has appeared*

>>10222832
I remember studying the explanation to this in high school. It was so contrived that I forgot it after 3 days.

>>10222832
haha u cant know anything lol im so deep

>>10222832
He is inffering that true knowledge is impssible to obtain, so might as well say that nothing exists. Even if knowledge can be attained no one will understand it so it is pointless.
Seems like uber nihilism to me.

>>10222837

>>10222837
...not so fast

>>10222851
only plebs think socrates was intelligent, sorry

He simply invented the art of asking stupid questions

>>10222814
>>10222832
I am 100% sure this is a Beckett quote

>>10222857
>being this bothered by socratic questions that aim to reveal the nature of the one being questioned
Looks like somebody had his sweet little ass SOCRATES'D

>>10222857
>He simply invented the art of asking stupid questions
...and??

>>10222860
socraplease nigga

>>10222860
this post reveals the intellectual level of Socrates fanboys


>IM SMART BECAUSE I ASK STUPID QUESTIONS, IF YOU CANT ANSWER MY RETARDED QUESTIONS IM SMARTER THAN YOU HEHEHE

he mistakes knowledge for the ability to describe it, as if a homeless nigger-looking greek with a dysfunctional family life is smart but a heroic aristocrat is not. just because the latter cannot properly explain himself

>>10222880
T. Butthurt aristocrat

>>10222887
t. pleb

>>10222877
ugly motherfucker

REPTILES!!!

>>10222858
close senpai
"‘There is nothing to express, nothing from which to express, no power to express, no desire to express, together with an obligation to express"
thats from a pretty obscure interview, you must like Beckett a lot

>>10222832
This: >>10222849

Gorgias was the Chad of the sophists. He tried to win an argument against Socrates by destroying the dialectic, but was instead shut down by the most talented tongue in Athens. Read the Gorgias dialogue.

>>10222774
>greeks
>western philosophy

>>10222920
>the most talented tongue in Athens
haha it sounds like Socrates sucked him so good he nutted too hard to continue

>>10222832
His full explanation is pretty cool actually, an early treatise on the limitations of knowledge and language:

I. Nothing exists.

If anything exists, it must be either Being or Not-Being, or both Being and Not-Being.

(a) It cannot be Not-Being, for Not-Being does not exist; if it did, it would be at the same time Being and Not-Being, which is impossible.

(b) It cannot be Being, for Being does not exist. If Being exists, it must be either everlasting, or created, or both.

i. It cannot be everlasting; if it were, it would have no beginning, and therefore would be boundless; if it is boundless, then it has no position, for if it had position it would be contained in something, and so it would no longer be boundless; for that which contains is greater than that which is contained, and nothing is greater than the boundless. It cannot be contained by itself, for then the thing containing and the thing contained would be the same, and Being would become two things—both position and body—which is absurd. Hence if Being is everlasting, it is boundless; if boundless, it has no position ('is nowhere'); if without position, it does not exist.

ii. Similarly, Being cannot be created; if it were, it must come from something, either Being or Not-Being, both of which are impossible.

iii. Similarly, Being cannot be both everlasting and created, since they are opposite. Therefore Being does not exist.

iv. Being cannot be One, because if it exists it has size, and is therefore infinitely divisible; at least it is threefold, having length, breadth and depth.

v. It cannot be Many, because the Many is made up of an addition of Ones, so that since the One does not exist, the Many do not exist either.

(c) A mixture of Being and Not-Being is impossible. Therefore since Being does not exist, nothing exists.

>>10224034
II. If anything exists, it is incomprehensible.

If the concepts of the mind are not realities, reality cannot be thought: if the thing thought is white, then white is thought about; if the thing thought is non-existent, then non-existence is thought about; this is equivalent to saying that 'existence, reality, is not thought about, cannot be thought'. Many things thought about are not realities: we can conceive of a chariot running on the sea, or a winged man. Also, since things seen are the objects of sight, and things heard are the objects of hearing, and we accept as real things seen without their being heard, and vice versa; so we would have to accept things thought without their being seen or heard; but this would mean believing in things like the chariot racing on the sea.

Therefore reality is not the object of thought, and cannot be comprehended by it. Pure mind, as opposed to sense-perception, or even as an equally valid criterion, is a myth.

III. If anything is comprehensible, it is incommunicable.

The things which exist are perceptibles; the objects of sight are apprehended by sight, the objects of hearing by hearing, and there is no interchange; so that these sense-perceptions cannot communicate with one another. Further, that with which we communicate is speech, and speech is not the same thing as the things that exist, the perceptibles; so that we communicate not the things which exist, but only speech; just as that which is seen cannot become that which is heard, so our speech cannot be equated with that which exists, since it is outside us. Further, speech is composed from the percepts which we receive from without, that is, from perceptibles; so that it is not speech which communicates perceptibles, but perceptibles which create speech. Further, speech can never exactly represent perceptibles, since it is different from them, and perceptibles are apprehended each by the one kind of organ, speech by another. Hence, since the objects of sight cannot be presented to any other organ but sight, and the different sense-organs cannot give their information to one another, similarly speech cannot give any information about perceptibles.

Therefore, if anything exists and is comprehended, it is incommunicable.