/lit/ - Literature

methodically

Read it.

>>10780127
just read it and accept that you won't completely understand everything in your first read. take as much time you need to look into any gaps of knowledge you have..... like with any other book you small dicked mongoloid

Read Anscombe's introduction first.

>>10780127
Read it along with Monk's Duty of Genius for a better idea of Wittgenstein's life in general.
Other than that, I'd definitely suggest finding a good secondary work to read alongside it, and just skip the introduction by Russell since even according to Wittgenstein himself Russell didn't understand the work at all.
Personally, I'd never have understood the book if I didn't have a professor that went through the entire thing.

>>10780127
With wiki open to look up notation/concepts you don't understand.
Then read it again without wiki.
Then I suggest 'Throwing away the ladder' by Cora Diamond.

Best way is with a class or lecture series, second best way is with the Cambridge Companion

>>10780127
Skip it and read the Investigations instead

>>10780127
Skip it and read Guenon instead

If you want to actually understand jewish, erm, "philosophers" like Wittgenstein you have to understand the jewish question first. Just assuming jews are wired similar to and think like whites will cause you to miss too much. Jews are tribal and extremely deceptive as well, so until you are able to tear down that facade and learn how they are by nature and why they think the way they do, you won't actually understand what is truly being conveyed. This goes for all jewish intellectuals, Marx, Derrida, etc. Learn about the jewish problem first and then you will understand where these jewish thinkers are coming from. Don't take them at face value, their interests are different than our own and they don't enter these subjects to progress them in the way we do, they enter them to subvert them because that's what jews do.

>>10780127
You follow what Wittgenstein says in the beginning on how to read it

Point 1.234 is in direct relation to 1.23, and not 1.24, and both 1.23 and 1.24 are in direct relation to 1.2, etc. Dont mess this up for the love of god, its not hard

Also
>>10780238
Is pretty good advice, but she is a bit tough

>>10780265
>Then I suggest 'Throwing away the ladder' by Cora Diamond.
Is good advice, from my perspective, because I agree with her interpretation. I also recommend Diamond's "Does Bismark have a beetle in his box?"

It would also be important to be familiar with Frege and Russell, specifically, Russell's ideas on definite descriptions and knowledge by acquaintance

PS: it gets much easier after his talk of world and objects. Just get through that. Trust me

skip it and read the talmud instead

Skip it and jet back to my place and pop in a blu-ray instead

literally just read it

>>10780577
Whats a book on this subject?

>>10781627

>>10781640
Will i want to punch walls once i read it?

>>10781643
Yes, but if you are white it's essential that you understand this problem.

>>10781654
The whole stablishment and media is jew, it cant be a problem, its ontological substract, its too big already. The problem is you.

>>10781664
you are adopting an alien perspective on yourself

you are fundamentally insane

>>10780577
t. brainlet
Name one way your theory applies to the Tractatus, which is, in f a c t, a very straightforward and sincere work.

>>10782058
>very straightforward and sincere
how can you tell

>>10780127
eyes closed head firmly placed on top of the cover

>>10781664
then why are wars fought and won if the dominant group in a geographic area is "too big"?

"too big" dies to "too much bigger" all the time

you're a total fucking retard, maybe even a bot

TLP is really hard to read because Wittgenstein is breaking out of the wrong-headed bizarre ideas of logical positivism and its Fregean epistemic foundations, and working his way toward his mature understanding of logic as founded in grammar. The Philosophical Investigations is a thousand times easier to understand, and once you understand it, it's a thousand times easier to see WHY Frege was so wrong and how TLP was an attempt to break out of the problems of the logicist paradigm.

Even really venerable analytic philosophers who tortuously arrived at PI after spending years studying Frege and analytic philosophy, meaning they have a much better ability to understand the twists and turns of Fregean ontology, argue endlessly over the TLP and what it exactly means. For people who have not had their minds poisoned by the Fregean ontology through studying logic for years, it's even harder.

And your reward for doing all that, assuming you succeed, is exactly the same whether you study the PI first (much easier) or whether you torture yourself by trying to backwards-engineer Fregeanism just to bust your way out of it. That is, you will wind up going "oh.. so Frege was pretty dumb. The TLP is a milestone toward the PI. Now I know, I guess."

>>10782082
>and working his way toward his mature understanding of logic as founded in grammar.
Can you expand on this? Sounds interesting