/lit/ - Literature

Jews shouldn't be allowed to do philosophy. Unless of course their name is Baruch Spinoza (pbuh)

Yes, his sensai.

Wittgenstein I like, purely because he's the Darth Vader of analytic philosophy. You can't refute him, it is semantic bullshit.

Wittgenstein was a based retard

>>15141309
Wittgenstein saved me, or did he, when I use such words as 'save me' what am I exactly referring to when I say I was 'saved'? We must look at which language game the word 'saved' is borrowed from.

>>15141322
Based. PBUH!

>>15141309
>To these people it's all a mere language game
This is absolutely not a new idea.
The fallibility of language was always a concern and aware to any philosopher.
These words, sentences still denote something.
You can look near anywhere in philosophy and find that there is meaning even if language is an empirical semantic mess. Even if the words themselves fail to properly denote what that is you mean, you are still meaning something.
Anyone realizes this and with the consideration of the fallibility of language gives up the word games and becomes aware that language is within limitations and ought to be aware of the different language games possible at play.
The conversation only then really starts once you are a wittgensteinian.

>>15142007
Philosophy is more or less a linguistic phenomenon: a question of language and grammar, hair-splitting and shadowboxing. It is not concerned with reality at all. It talks about reality. But remember, to talk about reality is one thing and to move into reality is quite another. Philosophy is talk, religion is experience.

“My interest is in religion, not in philosophy at all.

“Noah Webster’s neighbor came into the pantry and found him kissing the pretty chambermaid.

“’My, Mr. Webster!’ she exclaimed. ‘I am surprised!’

“’No, my dear,’ said Mr. Webster with a reproving smile. ‘You are astounded, I am surprised.’

“It is only a question of words: the reality is put aside. Webster is a linguist, a great grammarian. He changes the words, he says, ‘No, my dear, you are astounded. You are using the wrong word when you say ‘I am surprised’. You are astounded, I am surprised.’

“The emphasis – you see the emphasis – is no longer upon the act of kissing the pretty maid, the emphasis is on the wrong word or the right word.

“Philosophers go on and on with words, and words have their own way. One word brings another word, and so on and so forth. You can go on and on ad infinitum. There is no end to words. You can fabricate, manufacture new words. And you can create such a fuss about words. You can mystify people. Philosophy is a mind trick, a very sophisticated trick but a mind trick.”

>>15141544
This.
>>15141785
Based? Based on what?

>>15141309
what people don't want to understand is that there are 2 wittgensteins.
1. the published one
2. the unpublished one, from 1921 to 1951.
the first one is a logician who aimed to prove that
> what can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
this truely is the end of
> god
> being
> brahman, atman, anatman,..
> mysticism
> etc
this philosophy is deeply atheist, more atheist than any american science popularizer could ever dream to be.
THEN there is the unpublished wittgenstein, who was basically a mystic, since he dropped his entire rationalist system and embraced other premises.

>>15141322
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/05/05/pariah-to-messiah-the-engineered-apotheosis-of-baruch-spinoza-part-1-of-3/

>>15142174
>But remember, to talk about reality is one thing and to move into reality is quite another.
Impressive. I hadn't noticed.

>>15142174
moron. philosophy is concerned with truth and only that.
no denying daoists or religionfags have merit of truth but denying the inherent truth in language is as stupid as harping on mental truths and ignoring the "real world" (spiritual or materialistic). if you exclude one you are not encompassing all truth (which would be simply Truth).

religionfags err in their "no language" shenanigans jsut as much as philosophers who employ language, it is simply different.

>>15142516
>inherent truth in language

>>15141309
Words are just static noise

>>15142533
A=A

>>15142715
The truth lies in the relationship of what is being symbolised. It's not inherent to the symbols themselves.

>>15141309
I see where he is coming from though.

Everyone sees 2 +2 is 4 the same way. But not everyone sees the same intensity in the word hate

No-one in this thread has read him. It shows.

>>15142516
>philosophy is concerned with truth and only that.
midwit take

>>15142715
Truisms aren't truths you faggot

>>15141309
>The concept that every conversation and argument can be dismissed as semantics is infuriating.
He's not wrong. Arguments are intrinsically based on the individual and do not necessarily stand alone in a vacuum.

>>15141309
philosophy wasn't made obsolete by science but by theology. except philosophers still LARP in this grey area between science and theology. in reality there is no truth for philosophy anymore. science rejects its physical speculations, theology rejects its metaphysical speculations.

>>15144183
>truth
room.

This reduces philosophy to a mere state of posing questions as Zizek says. Philosophy cannot anymore make a positive statement, all it can do is ask questions about certain problems, problems that eventually either become solved by science or subsumed into theology.

>>15144201
There is no reason that philosophy should have continued as a discipline past St.Thomas Aquinas. It is not Wittgenstein who ended philosophy, but he by correctly assuming that philosophy is merely pre-Christian speculation about metaphysical qualities that are known to God, which can ultimately only be solved through Divine Revelation. Philosophy's correct place is as a footnote to theology. To do philosophy post Aquinas is like to do astronomy by looking up into the sky with your eyes after the discovery of telescopes.

>>15144245
So as you see today we are in this very awkward situation where philosophy admits into its ranks physicists who wind up being philosophers of physics and speculate on quantum interpretations and the sad thing is this is the best philosophy has to offer. The alternatives, analytic autism which is philosophy turned in into itself to the point where it is completely removed from where it started as a discipline and doesn't even make an attempt to answer any questions on one hand and continental posturing which is nothing but an ideological project with fancy language-games on the other hand, are total jokes. It is a total charade.

>>15144183
>>15144201
>>15144245
>>15144282
Please put everything you need to say in one post.

>>15141322
This

Wiggy was a brainlet who got bullied in school by Hitler. Also his brother was smarter than him

>>15141309
what a crinj 'muh knowledge' thread

I bet you don't even study analytic Phil, so why bother pretending you care ?

>>15141309
holy shit Phil may be the most crinj'd board on 4chan bi

>>15141309
t. has never read Wittgenstein

>>15144183
theology was still-born to philosophy and succeeded by ideology, philosophy's pagan roots allow it's return in post-ideological contexts

>>15145076
ok schizo

>>15145076
Based
>>15145087
Cringe

>>15141309
He invented the duckface.

>>15141309
Read Philosophical Investigations you fucking moron. That applies to everybody in this thread who doesn't understand that Wittgenstein completely disowned the Tractatus.

>>15142431
>the first one is a logician who aimed to prove that
>> what can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
>this truely is the end of
>> god
>> being
>> brahman, atman, anatman,..
>> mysticism
>> etc
>this philosophy is deeply atheist,

No it’s not. It just says you can’t speak of them, not that they don’t exist. It’s closer to kinds of zen and negative theology than atheism.

>>15145398
PI is barely even middle Wittgenstein pleb

>>15146273
So?

>>15146273
>published posthumously
>"not even middle Wittgenstein"

>>15142431
>THEN there is the unpublished wittgenstein, who was basically a mystic
have you even read some of the things he said in the Tractatus? He goes full mystic in certain propositions/subpropositions. If anything, he was a ton more rational in PI.

>>15141328
correct, Bertrand Russell is the worst

>>15141309
language doesn't exist

>>15145825
>>15146373
>It just says you can’t speak of them, not that they don’t exist
this is a common misunderstanding for religious people when they try to read wittgenstein. in wittgenstein's philosophy (that is, the TLP) everything "one cannot speak of" doesn't exist in the "realm" of meaning, it is just philosophically meaningless. in this he is identical to caranp. this stance is much more radical than the usual positivist (=atheist) division between "obejectivity" (science) and "arbitrariness" (religion), which btw he has very clear in his mind:

> The totality of true propositions is the total natural science (or the totality of the natural sciences)

> The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.

indeed, if "positivist" means just knowing the distinction between objective (= true= science) and subjective (subfalse = not science, e.g. religion), and NOT necessarly abstaining from fromulating subjetive propositions, wittgenstein (= super-atheist) says much more than that, that is, one should abstain from it while doing philosophy. of course this extremely rigorous stance is unbearable, and after 1921 he falls back in the positivist praxis thus dealing with subjective things (ethics, art, religion, etc), altough coherently with TLP he doesn't publish any of that. so when in the previous post i said that the "second wittgenstein" is a mystic, i was actually being imprecise: he is an old positivist with a peculiar love for the mystical divagation (like ernest renan for instance).

>>15143206
i don't need language to see the thing is identical with itself.
A=A is a representation of something that needs no representation and therefore true without "actually" denoting smth.

>>15146427
Why?

>>15146819
Your arguement is equivalent to

If I make something up, that something is equivalent to itself. Therefore fundamental truth exists.

A=A does not reveal anything other than foundational semantics. If you think semantics are the source of truth rather than simply an output (to which we interface with) then you can say your argument is correct.

>>15141309
This aspie retard is personally responsible for SIX MILLION JEWS allegedly dying!

>>15141328
This. It's Russel, then Rorty.
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/ANELLIS/csp&br.htm

>>15142516
>truth
>semantics
retardo

>>15147778
Only conflating each leads you to think that either semantics or that which semantics ought to denote is true but not both.
Truths in semantic languages are true in the same manner that a thing being itself is true.
Literally looking at each seperate, they are true, only if you mix them you end up thinking one must be wrong for the other to be right. Both are right.

>>15144055
yes they are

What is meant by truth? Someone elucidate.

A=A is true, but it says nothing.

>>15141309
>Is there a philosopher more detestable and obnoxious than Wittgenstein?
yeah, marxists in general are impossible to talk to because they have already decided that everything that contradicts is a bourgeois conspiracy

>>15149111
but they aren't philosophers

>>15149123
based

>>15141309
Saying philosophy is just a language game is an abstraction of an abstraction. It is a simplification which truncates the granular and holistic detail of its subject to facilitate communication - like saying the weather is just atoms banging into each other.

>>15141328
繊細(sensai) means delicate, you dumb EOP.
I doubt Russell was really 繊細.

>>15146819
Nothing in reality is identical with itself. The concept of identity or equivalence is an attempt to apprehend reality by those who find themselves overwhelmed by it. Even the self stands in relation to itself, not in identity.

>>15149110
Truth stands in opposition to the real. You can't have both. Truth is external, reality is internal. Top-down vs. growth-outward.

>>15150238
>Even the self stands in relation to itself
A thing doesn't have to stand in any relation to be. the other way is exactly the wrong approach; the conflating semantic language with something not part of it will obviously lead to saying one has to be wrong.
The thing simply is without its identity or relation, its being is true. That does in no way take away form the semantic truths such as A=A.
The demand that A=A denote a thing actually being identical with itself is retarded and results in the need for one side of the approach to be deemed insufficient or wrong for the other to become the dominant aspect and be called truth, while in fact both are true.

>>15150308
Then you have not really addressed the most fundamental concepts and problems arisen from the idea of being. The way that it functions in language does not correspond to its reality. This is what the failure of the Tractatus ultimately proves. You yourself admit it when you say "semantic truth", an obvious fallacy. You are thinking in atoms, where reality is composed of something more like fields or flux, and no discrete being without relation can be observed, only said to be.

>>15150402
>The way that it functions in language does not correspond to its reality
Yes fully agree. The initial goal of the Tractatus holds true by dismissing logic as part of language but even in the second book he is still wrong by attempting language to at all attempt to denote "the real world" even if insufficiently or rather unsatisfactory.
>The way that it functions in language does not correspond to its reality.
Two things can not possibly correlate since they are two different things. Same for language and anything it tries to denote. This does not have to take away from truths in language jsut because denoting words fail to actually denote the thing itself (that which it "must" to denote). Denoting language fails only because we want it to be denoting language. Same with empirical facts failing at being empirical facts of any thing itself doesn't actually change that the fact of the thing truly is (the fact itself is true), but only that we want to uphold this fact to be an empirical fact (for us). In Language there can still be truths without it having to denote to anything or go beyond the language itself (even sticking solely to private language). A=A is a truth in the language and nothing outside of it will not make it True. Language failing to denote a thing will not make the thing not be; will not make its being not be true.
You seem to have a dogma of truth that forces you to chose between different truths and call one wrong to mix them together leaving you with less than before you started.
>You are thinking in atoms, where reality is composed of something more like fields or flux, and no discrete being without relation can be observed, only said to be.
I do not really see what you mean by this, since this doesn't really apprach anything I was thinking about when writting these posts and
> and no discrete being without relation can be observed, only said to be.
is definitely not what I mean.
When I say
>Language failing to denote a thing will not make the thing not be; will not make its being not be true.
I do not mean that Saying "the thing is" is true but the thing being is true, Outside of language.
>why are you unironically engaging me?

>>15141309
You're mad because you know that he is right.

>>15142174
Religion is the mind trick. Religion is threatened by philosophy because it knows that good philosophy can expose religion for the fraud it is.

>>15150567
If you are content with ascribing tautologies any kind of value by calling them truth then I will not try to take that comfort from you. Such might you ascribe to your equal sign. There are many who worship the ourobouros. They're just bad at playing snake though. You're supposed to avoid hitting yourself. There, that was more ironic engagement. Is that better?

>>15150696
>There, that was more ironic engagement.
>There are many who worship the ourobouros. They're just bad at playing snake though
kek. yes this was a good one.

I am actually being sincere when I say that tautologies hold truth just as a thing being holds truth.
Perhaps it helps saying its different truths but frankly as long as we cant formulate, say, understand what even is true the things that """""appear"""" true and through """""Intuition"""""" simply are true. (don't harp on this; its obviously not how I would want to write this as seen by all previous posts).
Reality is true jsut as language is true, not jsut what it says within itself, but solely by being (spoken). A viewpoint that seems ludacris to hold is true when understanding that one simply msut be a lunatic to have this viewpoint. The viewpoint itself is true even relating to whatever it is refrencing + the need for lunacy. How is it wrong? it is not but for others (e.g. viewpoints).

The most obvious sign really should be that there can be so many different philosophies, or that even one person can go from one paradigm and every decade shift to a new, the truer one this time. It should be obvious that in the recordings on Heraclit there is truth just as in the staunch opposite in parmenides' work there is truth. No dialctic is necessary to combine or dissect the two to reveal the truths since both are true on their own (in whatever manner).
The notion of what is true and truth itself is so sorrowfully conflated and adjusted by (near) everyone that it would appear as a spectator as if there is no truth in their world.
There is no need for Socrates to deduce from his speeches that he knows no truth and that no one actually has knowledge of the truth rather they all are true in different forms and ways and the only thing wrong about them is if in the language there is an assumption of combining things leading to neither holding up and both to appear wrong (together).

>deign me please at least one last response

>>15150930
>Reality is true jsut as language is true, not jsut what it says within itself, but solely by being (spoken)
That's the thing. The meaning of a proposition is in its use, right? So just because something is spoken does not mean that the proposition is true if it's meaning is other than that which is spoken. Take your tautologies for example. All tautologies mean the same thing logically. But when I tell you God is infinite, which is a logical tautology, my meaning is not the assertion itself but in my attempt to reel you in toward my concept or use of the term God by the accepted properties of the infinite. So when you assert A=A, the meaning or truth is not in the proposition itself but in the assertion of your own individual understanding of it and not indivisible from the entirety of your experience and the development of your reality over time. Therefore there is no truth in the proposition itself, only within you who asserted it, that truth being exclusively yours. So it is with all language. And you seem to recognize this when you acknowledge truth within the efforts of the philosophers you cited, but seem unable to divest the concept of the individual truth from the objective assertion.

>>15150672
Religion isn't about dogmas.

>>15151273
>Take your tautologies for example. All tautologies mean the same thing logically. But when I tell you God is infinite, which is a logical tautology, my meaning is not the assertion itself but in my attempt to reel you in toward my concept or use of the term God by the accepted properties of the infinite.
Yeah I fully agree with your sentiment. I would try to "solve" it like this:
What Kant supposes in his transcendental Deduction are the inherent (possible) tautologies in language, BUT when Kant says the Kategorie (category) of "cause and effect" the Kategorie isn't actually the letters and words or sounds of "cause and effect", but rather in the sense of the shemata he later brings up, the cause-and-effect has to be of transcendental nature so that all forms of "cause and effect" can fall under it. Language itself would limit itself too much and not be able to encompass the necessary universality of cause-and-effect, the Kategorie. His example was that in a plate there is the shemata of the circle, yet the shemata or the notion of a circle can never be a empirical restricted notion because all circular things have part in the notion of a circle so only the shemata of the notion (the rule of applying the notion) can be attempted to be formulated in empirical language as in "circle"; or the Kategorie "cause and effect".
The Kategorie of identity, represented in language as A=A, is not the word, from any empirical sprout, "identity".
So with your example, and all theology, Kant is totally right in that our notions stem (but perhaps dont originate) from experience and therefore "god" , "infinite" do not actually mean god or infinite and therefore any such mental gymnastics would be
> your own individual understanding of it and not indivisible from the entirety of your experience and the development of your reality over time
(hope I didn't missunderstand you).
> Therefore there is no truth in the proposition itself, only within you who asserted it
yes and no.
Me saying "A=A" is only true (to me; which still means it has truth) in my private language and therefore cant be compromissed with others but the notion, the Kategorie, of A=A is true in itself (a priori).
Seperating empirical from the things themselves is necessary for language as well.
The empirical language has truth in itself even free from tautologies, so that my private langauge of any objet I chose my words to denote are true, while at the same time the idea of the "a priori" language has truth in its tautologies. Mixing these two again is taking truth from both seeing the incongruence and sacrificing one for the benefit of the other; similar as to how language as a whole will lead to incongruent results when compromised with being things.

>>15151564
There is a final step to this, my private philosophy: basically follow the concept of the Self going through all its stages while at the same time not actually going through them to arrive at already having all the stages in Hegels Phenomenology of Spirit, so that truisms don't hold the same weight as truth does. "Everyone is right (in some way)" or "everyone is wrong" are not a truths but a truism.
private language truths don't have to be true Only for that subject, neither is the being of a thing only true for it, but all the truths being would be the (one) truth. A truth that includes all the seemingly contradictory positions that shan't stand together.

>>15148993
No, semantics are falliable and inherently imprecise. It’s often the opposite of what’s expressed as true in semantics is just as true. This is not really the case in nature.

>>15151609
Kants insistence upon the a priori is what made me drop him, not for that I don't think he is worth reading but philosophy is always only ever bogged down by any preconception so I'd rather read something else, but that concept of Kategory and its relationship to the a priori and tautology are exactly what I consider unnecessary, and I think philosophy is much about finding the necessary, which is why I like Hegels idea of immediacy because I think all philosophical necessity is arrested within the immediate which is the self and its relation to the self as reflected by the universal. It seems we largely agree on the central points but as tautology insists upon itself I find it as unnecessary as anything that does, and so would do away with it entirely in my own language world. However, if you find some merit in it within yours, I respect that. As you say, if I paraphrase correctly, the one truth contains all the seemingly contradictory positions which, as we might have demonstrated, can indeed stand together.

>>15152764
One additional point, and this comes down to essentially personal belief, I believe that language is antecedent to reality, if we view it in a chronological or rather hierarchical sense. Some believe that reality is inherently linguistic like I think Christopher Langmeme asserts (and funny that his name has Lang in it) or the Bible which states that "In the beginning was the Word". I think this is a result of people identifying themselves too strongly with language as A=A where A is self and A is language, and think Hegel's hierarchy of idea>concept>principle is closer to reality, and language happened somewhere in the midst of all that which would mean nothing in language can possibly be a priori.

>>15146677
thank god I'm a language idealist and not some retarded atomist

>>15152832
Chris Langan is obsessed with tautologies because you cannot refute tautologies without giving away all rights for you to use tautologies (that is, you literally cannot reply).

>>15153326
High IQ tends to instill an obligation to justify it, which often leads to an attempt to dominate a fundamentally linguistic field. This often results in that linguistic field dominating you.