/lit/ - Literature

>>15517354
because he's a white male, and the field of "philosophy" is now "cultural studies"

Cyclical popularity trend in downturn phase, and no discernible praxis in his work

>>15517354
>I've heard that
stop it already

>>15517354
What? He's like the only one in the analytic tradition that is still universally regarded.

>>15517365
Is the lack of praxis a criticism? Is it a problem of analytical philosophers? I'm not a philosopher and not too widely read. I'd like to read some recent things that have interacted with Witty's work in an illuminating way

He was massively influential in the 60s and after that but has been appropriated in so many ways for so long that it's no longer fashionable just to be working on Wittgenstein anymore, and the official schools and approaches to his work that gelled around his name now have their own quirks that lots of people find annoying. They're more about whatever it is they do than Wittgenstein himself.

Don't go by academic fashions though, they're almost always meaningless. Whenever any thinker becomes popular whole industries spring up around him and often don't have much to do what the original thinker was saying or what he cared about.

>>15517407
Thanks anon, interesting response. Is there anyone whose work on Wittgenstein you would recommend?

>>15517354
Read the Ray Monk AUTObiography

>>15517354
because lefties don't want to admit that all of their struggles boil down to linguistics

>>15517376
>dude people like... use language and shit

>>15517354
It depends on what you mean by "fall out of fashion." It's true that in the 60's, people thought that there was (e.g.) a /private language argument/ to be found in PI, and that it was of primary importance to articulate and defend the argument. People don't act like that anymore.

But various self-avowed Wittgensteinian sympathies remain. For one, there remain many who are sympathetic to Wittgenstein's general metaphilosophy (we get bewitched by language, we think there's a real question here when there isn't, philosophy is the assembling of reminders, philosophy is therapy, etc). And there are people who sympathize with Wittgenstein's urging of a radically different, shall we say anti-Fregean conception of language (Mark Wilson and Brandom come to mind).

But in both cases, I think the feeling is that Wittgenstein's arguments/considerations haven't kept pace with the development of philosophy over the past 70 years. One major reason for that, I conjecture, is the rise of something like Quine's naturalism in philosophy (e.g. philosophy ought to be as contiguous as possible with scientific inquiry) and, correspondingly, a deprecation of what strikes people as anti-science in Wittgenstein. (So for example, considerations from philosophy of science and the advent of cognitive science have made it seem to many that Wittgenstein's skepticism about mental representation is just methodologically misguided.) Consequently, from a Wittgensteinian perspective, this naturalism is now a further impulse that we ought to "therapize away"---but Wittgenstein never really addresses that particular malady, if you know what I mean. So, you can't just rely on Wittgenstein to defend a Wittgensteinian metaphilosophy, you have to do most of the work yourself. So that's one reason people aren't really reading Wittgenstein in the way they did in the 60s and 70s.

Similarly, it takes real work to get a wholesale Wittgensteinian conception of language off the ground in 2020. We have decades of what /strikes/ many people as progress in the philosophy of language, linguistic syntax, and formal semantics, all of which is (again, to use an empty label) "Fregean" in the sense Wittgenstein abjures. One way or another, that progress needs to be reckoned with. Especially since those fields can accommodate much of what Wittgenstein emphasizes. The uses of language can and has been systematically integrated into accounts of (a) reference fixation (think Kripke), (b) the context-sensitivity of truth-conditions (think formal semantics for indexicals), (c) the non-representational effects of language (think pragmatics), and (d) the non-representational uses of language (think expressivism about evaluative discourse, or epistemic modals).

anyone have a pdf/epub of vol 1 or 2 of his remarks on the philosophy of psychology? can't find them anywhere online

>>15518356

looks like one of them is on LibGen

>>15518373
it isn't there from what I see. can you post the url?

>>15517354
You have no idea what's "in fashion" in philosophy. The very concept applied to individual philosophers of the past is idiotic.

>>15517357
Retard.

One of the most significant philosophers of this age, Ludwig Wittgenstein, says, "Do not say that which cannot be said." He is right, because saying that which cannot be said is dangerous. It is bound to be wrong, it is falsifying. It is exactly what Lao Tzu says, "Truth cannot be said. The moment you say it you falsify it." But Lao Tzu said it, and Wittgenstein could not control either.

The Upanishads say, "Those who know, they are silent, and those who do not know, they speak." But the Upanishads are saying it, so where to put the Upanishads? Socrates says, "I know only one thing, that I know nothing." But that one thing he knows, and that one thing contains all.

It is true that if it can be said without words that is the best, but who will understand it?

There is a beautiful story about Mahavira. When he became enlightened, for seven days he spoke without words - but who will understand without words? Only a few gods who had come to see this miracle that had happened on the earth, only they could understand. But it was almost useless because they knew it already anyway. What he was saying they could only nod their heads to. They could say, "Yes, it is right."

Then Mahavira had to speak in a language that could be understood by mortal human beings. But his message was so condensed - he was a lover of maxims. He wouldn't elaborate, he wouldn't explain; he would simply assert without any explanation. So only very few very evolved human beings could understand him and they became his interpreters, his ganadharas. He would speak to those eleven persons and then those eleven persons would go and speak to others.

Finally he decided that that too was not right because the moment he said something it was falsified immediately - it was no longer as beautiful as it was in silence. Then those ganadharas, those eleven interpreters, would hear; something more was lost because what they heard, they heard according to themselves. And when those ganadharas said it to the ordinary masses, something again was lost because they used their language; they could not use Mahavira's language. And when the masses heard it, it was almost something totally different than what was said by Mahavira. So finally he had to speak directly.

All enlightened masters would have liked to speak through silence, but where are the people who will understand it? Then they have to speak the language of the people, and they have to prepare people slowly so that one day they can understand the silence too.

That's what I am trying to do here - I am talking to you continuously only in order to help you one day to sit in silence with me. Nothing will be said, nothing will be heard: all will be said, all will be heard.

>>15518184
Good post anon. Imho Wittgenstein's interpreters mostly wrapped him in bullshit by attempting to formalize his ideas.

In reply to your third paragraph, I believe Wittgenstein is more congenial to people with Kantian inclinations who are skeptical of nonsense (sorry if I offend here) like cognitive science. Wittgenstein remains useful for knocking the wind out of neo-positivists like these.

I disagree slightly with your last paragraph however. I agree that the continuing work in traditional analytic philosophy of language has to be "reckoned" with, but not because of its insights or advances. I may offend again here but there are those who think that building on sand is always going to be building on sand, no matter how many workarounds or stopgap solutions you can muster to "accommodate" criticisms of it. I'm sure analytic philosophy of language is useful to somebody somewhere, but for someone following Wittgenstein it is fundamentally unsound and simply untrue in the "Fregean" sense you give here. I think you're smart to ideal type these traditions in this way, but they are bad philosophy from Wittgenstein's perspective.

>>15518395
No need to posture here.

>>15518445
>No need to posture here.
Take your own advice, moron.

>>15518184
>Quine's naturalism
was there ever a more evil man?

>>15517354

Bread and cheese

>>15518484
Neck yourself, fagboy.

>>15518460
>>15518496
>>15518484
Quine was born to muddy philosophical waters and patch over real gaps in philosophy so idiots would think they're fixed, he is pure evil

>>15518460
>>15518496
>>15518395
>Retard. Fucking imbecile. Fuck you, fuck off. "Fuck" you retard.
Does anyone else hear an angry breeze?

>>15518513
Weird my quotes doubled themselves, first part was reply to >>15518484

>>15518513
>>15518484
>>15518184

>Quine is evil

Do il/lit/erates really? Why is he evil?

>>15518184
These examples of progress are illusions which are already explained away as conceptual errors in advance in Witty's later philosophy. Peter Hacker has done the work of demonstrating this comprehensively.

The reason W has fallen out of fashion is because it exposes most contemporary philosophy as chimerical. There is a legitimate role for philosophy - specifically, identifying and removing conceptual errors in legitimate intellectual inquiries like the sciences. But philosophy departments have largely abandoned this in favour of seeking an illusory 'contiguity' (as you rightly call it) with the science. W's great insight is to see that philosophy is a conceptual inquiry, and is essentially not an empirical pursuit. In other words philosophy produces understanding, not knowledge.

>>15518513
Learn some philosophy before talking shit, pseud. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>15518553
>why is he evil?
because he was a pseud

>>15518553
His naturalism is stupid but he is alright in other places

>>15518605
Retard! Fucking idiot!

>>15518445
Re: your point about Kant. First off, I wonder why you equate cognitive science with neo-positivism. I'm taking cognitive science to be (most broadly) an attempt to articulate and empirically confirm causal principles of mental functioning at a level of abstraction higher than the neural, and (more tendentiously, but still fairly) the attempt to give such principles in a vocabulary that adverts to mental representation. In that, I don't see anything particularly neo-positivist. It doesn't mandate an analytic/synthetic distinction. It takes no particular stand on what sorts of discourse is "meaningful" or not. It need not be at all Humean in its cast. And it is, in principle, consistent with quite robust notions of the apriori. For the same reasons, I don't see why this enterprise is anything that Kantians need be skeptical of /per se/. I mean, I don't run with many Kantians, but even McDowell thinks cognitive science is a real and worthwhile discipline. He just hates when it (or its philosophical proponents) step "out of its lane" (if, e.g., it demands that the only coherent notion of /belief/ is the one that it uncovers). Maybe that is the "nonsense" you are referring to. And that's something to worry about; but it's different (and less general) than what I take to be the Wittgensteinian worry, which is that there's something suspicious about the very notion of a mental representation (and perhaps even the idea of having a science of mental activity at all). And by the same token, I would have thought that a thoroughgoing anti-representationalism is actually /unattractive/ for Kantians.

Re the third paragraph...I was trying very hard to stay neutral in my post and not presume that mainstream anglophone semantics is correct or worthwhile, but I guess my sympathies shone through all the same! In any case, I am in full agreement with you about the Wittgensteinian perspective. I didn't mean to suggest at all that the "accommodation" of Wittgenstein's insights would /at all/ placate a Wittgensteinian. I just meant to suggest that it explains why the Wittgensteinian spirit has to seek resources that are not immediately evident in Wittgenstein; the opponent has evolved, if nothing else.

Also agree wrt to Wittgenstein's interpreters. The idea that there are valid & sound arguments in Wittgenstein (if only we could uncover them!) seems deeply wrong. But, I am far from an expert on Wittgenstein, so I say that timidly.

>>15518624
Calm your tits, pseud.

>>15518600
Again, I regret using the word "progress" since that made my description too partisan. And I'll leave aside any discussion of philosophy of language/semantics. But regarding cognitive science, I will simply assert without defending my opinion, which is that Hacker's work is deeply embarrassing (although his contention with "consciousness studies" is perhaps reasonable). He misconstrues the practice and methodology of cognitive science in pretty profound ways. I think his ordinary language criticisms of cognitive science are essentially attacking a strawman.

As for your diagnosis, that seems likely to be a big part of the story. For reasons of self-esteem and self-justification to university administrators, it behoves philosophers to see themselves (and market themselves) as making progress in the production of "knowledge." Bonus points if you can talk to the STEM people. Conversely, producing "understanding" becomes a harder sell every year.

>>15518553
empirical philosophy is a contradiction

>>15518807
>>>/b/

>>15518767
>I will simply assert without defending my opinion
you should have just canceled your post and closed the tab once you realized that you typed that phrase

>>15518840
Wanted to give a reply but don't have the time/effort to effortpost to that degree. Compromises.

>>15517357
if you care about philosophy why do you go on the internet making things up to mislead people

What you said doesn't even make sense. Philosophy is studying philosophers. It is unavoidably not what you describe. Have some self respect and focus on pursuing the truth rather than attacking liberals in effigy

>>15518884
>telling others to focus on pursuing the truth
>in a thread about wittgenstein
Hot Ziggety!

>>15518390
Do your own work, dunce

>>15518884
bro the last time I took a class on Heidegger, my professor spent 50% of class answering questions from apprehensive zoomers who feared that reading Heidegger would turn them into a Nazi. and this was at a HYPSM. the poster you're shaming is actually right, and I wonder if you're either intellectually dishonest or some kind of fucking boomer who doesn't have a clue about what is happening in the current academic environment

>>15518949
Philosophy is predominantly and aggressively left-leaning. And there is a pretty big push to add non-Western traditions to course offerings and add minority authors to syllabi. But that doesn't make it "cultural studies."

>>15517357
>white
He is a Jew which explains his inherent mental illness

Why Wittgenstein Was Wrong:

1. Referents exist whether or not they are referred to by people.
2. Psychological certainty (a subjective lack of doubt) says nothing about a proposition's epistemic status.
3. People have other tools besides language so his philosophy is limited by his narrow focus.
4. His system offers no explanation for how people become competent language users.
5. People understand the kind of questions Wittgenstein says are nonsense, for example, "What was before the big bang?".
6. His remarks on math reveal how he conceived of math as nothing more than arithmetic which is another narrow focus.
7. Statements have meaning outside of any context of use, for example, "the tree is big" is understood even though I am not using it.

The list could go on endlessly. His work is complete drivel and set back intellectual progress centuries.

>>15519084
>1. Referents exist whether or not they are referred to by people.
name a single one

>>15519258
your mom

>>15519084
>Wittgenstein is wrong
>look at all these language games

>>15518884
sperg

>>15519084
never read wittgenstein

>>15519258
i can't think of a more efficient takedown than this

nice job anon

>>15517907
people like you make me wonder why I keep coming back here. this reply is a caricature of a midwit

>>15518442
Thanks Anon

>>15519258
>>15519277
>>15519680
wittshits can't offer up anything of substance in reply, how fitting

>>15518445
How would Wittgenstein view Panksepp?

>>15519791
No really, name and describe a referent. Should be easy for you.

>>15519791
>trying to get me to participate in language games

Where do you even start with reading him?

I find him interesting since he seems to be the least "analytic" of the analytics

>>15519907
Philosophical Investigations -> other posthumous publications -> notebooks -> 1930s -> 1920s

>>15519907
tractatus - > philosophical investigations - > on certainty

>>15519951
>>15519933
so which one is it?

>>15519973
Do you want a treatise on why we can’t use logic and propositions to talk about ethics? Read tractatus. Do you want a therapeutic approach to philosophical conundrums (like whether or not we can use logic to depict ethics)? Read PI

>>15519973
t > pi > oc
in the preface to pi he literally states that reading t first is the only way to see what he's getting at in pi. and I'm not just going by his word, its genuinely true. to see what's so revolutionary about pi you have to know what he's revolting against. and oc comes later since its building off of pi rather than revolting away from something

>>15520011
>>15520010
can tractatus be understood by someone with no background in analytic philosophy? I have read a lot of the big names in the history of philosophy, but very little of that sort of math-like philosophy that analytic stuff is known for

>>15520092
>>15519951
not even experts agree on the tractatus, it's short so if you want to read it read it but you won't get shit from it

the things he is famous for, he repudiates the whole tradition that the tractatus represents in them

>>15520092
recommend reading it along with a guidebook but don't need to be familiar with other analytic stuff. the writing in it is pretty simple though its just weird positions, some examples:

>1 The world is all that is the case.
>1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
>2 What is the case--a fact--is the existence of states of affairs.
>2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).

First line is him subscribing to naturalism. Second clarifies that the kind of naturalism he has in mind is factualism. Third line clarifies what he means by facts and introduces the view that facts are physical states rather than propositions. Fourth line clarifies that by physical states he has in mind combinations of objects and the relations between them, rather than simply denoting an individual object as a fact.

>>15520189
>First line is him subscribing to naturalism. Second clarifies that the kind of naturalism he has in mind is factualism.

fair take if it's yours, but this is the sort of thing that experts disagree over... its why it's so hard to read it

>>15518767
Good post. Have you read his Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience? I thought it was very thorough and compelling.

>>15520189
This is all wrong.

>>15520582
nice contribution to the thread

>>15517354
You hear from whom? How well versed are they in contemporary philosophic discourse? What expertise do they have? How credible are they? Have they made this statement multiple times? How did they back it up? Or was it a passing comment? Are you sure you're not just autistic and didn't get their tone?

>>15517440
One the best Wittgenstein scholars and someone who truly follows his philosophical program is PMS Hacker.

>>15518184
>Frege was described by his students as a highly introverted person, seldom entering into dialogues with others and mostly facing the blackboard while lecturing
imagine my shock

>>15520189
i love how analytic philosophers literally devoted their entire lives to describing the obvious in pointlessly abstruse language

>>15519084
Look at this retard.

>>15518671
He's parodying you, if you weren't so violently insecure and lashing out at everyone you would be able to see that

>>15517354
Because everyone got a hard on for him in the 80s and 90s and those people are insufferable. These are the same people that think Saul Kripke shits gold turds. At the end of the day, the dude wasn’t clear or disciplined, which was to his benefit in some ways, but seething analytics have their own kabbal to maintain.

>>15517354
In my uni he is probably the second biggest guy after Kant. Maybe Aristotle and Plato have as many courses, but there are fewer professors dedicated to them I think.

>>15517652
Why? I mean, how is it related to the thread's topic?

>>15521169
lmao wittshits still can't think of anything to say in reply to those criticisms. they are some of the most notable criticisms of his work by famous philosophers and you guys have nothing. its like being confronted with euthyphro's dilemma and never having heard it before. you're just out of your depth.

>>15523228
they aren't good criticisms

1. see >>15519258 >>15519820
2. obviously never read wittgenstein or you would know that 'epistemic status' is what
3. obviously never read him or you'd know he freely says this, he is not a systematic philosopher or linguistic idealist
4. see 3
5. he agrees and this is effectively the point of his whole philosophy
6. completely wrong, never read his remarks on mathematics or anything else by him probably
7. completely misunderstanding his idea of meaning=use, this one is very telling, you are going by youtube summaries at best

you have a shallow understanding of him and it is clear to anyone whos read him that you haven't, so why would anyone engage with you? you are not presenting any of his ideas, hell you are sometimes presenting his own ideas as your critical responses to his alleged ideas

>>15523270
>2. obviously never read wittgenstein or you would know that 'epistemic status' is what his psychologism or intuitionism is making problematic, he doesn't say there is no reality with no rational backbone, he says that language doesn't trivially tap into this backbone

see #1. name and describe a referent and its 'epistemic content' prior to language, go ahead.

Someone post Deleuze about Wittgenstein. Fast!!!!!!

>>15523379

An horrible traduction from a spanish website:
Claire Parnet:
>Well, let's move on to "W", and "W"...

Gilles Deleuze:
> There is nothing in "W"!

Claire Parnet:
>Yes, it is Wittgenstein; I know it doesn't mean anything to you, but I'd like you to say just a few words ...

Gilles Deleuze:
>Of that nothing, no. Yes, I don't want to talk about it. For me it is a philosophical catastrophe, it is the very type of a school, it is a regression of the entire philosophy to - a massive regression of philosophy ... the Wittgenstein case is very sad, yes, they have mounted a system of terror in the that everything ... under the pretext of doing something new, but it is ... it is the poverty established as greatness - it is, in short, there are no words to describe that danger, yes. It is a recurring danger, it is not the first time it has been repeated, but it is serious. Especially because they are bad, the Wittgensteinians, and also destroy everything. If they get away with it, then there will have been a murder of philosophy. If they get away with it! They are killers of philosophy, yes, yes.

Claire Parnet:
>And is it serious?

Gilles Deleuze:
>Yes, yes ... Great vigilance is required!


A summary from a english website:
>Parnet says, let’s move on to W, and Deleuze says, there’s nothing in W, and Parnet says, yes, there’s Wittgenstein. She knows he’s nothing for Deleuze, but it’s only a word. Deleuze says, he doesn’t like to talk about that… It’s a philosophical catastrophe. It’s the very type of a “school”, a regression of all philosophy, a massive regression. Deleuze considers the Wittgenstein matter to be quite sad. They imposed <ils ont foutu> a system of terror in which, under the pretext of doing something new, it’s poverty introduced as grandeur. Deleuze says there isn’t a word to express this kind of danger, but that this danger is one that recurs, that it’s not the first time that it has arrived. It’s serious especially since he considers the Wittgensteinians to be nasty <méchants> and destructive <ils cassent tout>. So in this, there could be an assassination of philosophy, Deleuze says, they are assassins of philosophy, and because of that, one must remain very vigilant. <Deleuze laughs>

>>15523270
cope

1. you're literally ignoring the "your mom" reply just because it BTFOs that person and reads like a joke. but his mom actually exists whether or not she is referred to or not.
2. you're not even responding to the criticism, you failed to understand it completely. I am specifically talking about what he calls hinge propositions there and criticizing his hinge epistemology. you're such a midWitt for thinking my post had anything to do with "reality".
3. no response yet again, you lose. you're just AGREEING with me that his work is narrow and not even acknowledging that this was brought up as a CRITICISM.
4. NO REPLY AGAIN LMAO. chomsky's program provides a way for explaining how people become competent speakers. It is objectively superior to wittgenstein's drivel for that reason.
5. Proof you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. He thinks questions like "What was before the big bang?" are nonsense, as in they cannot be understood. They are about as coherent as saying "This fo tree is green to bucke? in his view. Yet here you are proclaiming he AGREES with this CRITICISM of his work. You're a dumb fuck.
6. NO REPLY AGAIN. you're just saying "no". His remarks on Godel's work are criticized in this very way by actually smart people for showcasing wittgenstein's narrow understanding of what math is.
7. ANOTHER NON REPLY, "no". best you can do, huh? You're too dumb to even notice that I was drawing the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. Wittshits think pragmatics is all there is to meaning. Whereas me (and other smart people) agree that semantics is a thing. But its no surprise that wittshits haven't read any linguistics. you guys just read wittgenstein then close your ears and scream LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU for the rest of your life

>>15523491
LALALALALA CAN, Jacques

>>15523491
>LMAO LOL LMAO LOL LEL!!!!!

first off you write like a fag, stop it. second off, all of your post is showing again that you haven't read wittgenstein. how have you managed to get this invested in the topic? are you trolling, did you actually just watch youtube videos?

you're conflating tractatus with PI, while people in this thread itself talk about the difference between them. so you didn't even read the thread let alone wittgenstein or a book about him.

you still haven't answered #1. describe a referent. not say a word you think is a real referent. describe it and how it's a referent and how we gain certain knowledge of referents. we're all waiting on your theory of reference, solve the problem 2500 years of philosophy hasn't solved that's obvious to you. you won't do this because you know you're backed into a corner on it, go ahead find some excuse to wiggle out of it again.

>>15523563
>I won't reply to you but please reply to these new dumbfuck things I'm saying
how about no, you idiot. you bumbling buffoon.

I declare this thread as dead. You fags are a bunch of retards.

>>15523580
then continue being ignored, notice how i'm the only one replying to you and even i can't be bothered to untangle the five seconds of google tier knowledge you're trying to pass off as a real opinion

i even gave you an out, focus on the one part of your post where you get close to saying something and substantiate a big claim you made

enjoy talking to yourself moron

>>15523607
yea sadly, there were some people who knew their shit

>>15523622
You're a moron, kiddo.

>>15518184
>metaphilosophy
that's kind of absurd no? can you explain to me how metaphilosophy isn't philosophy anon?

>>15523709
take your meds

>>15523457
>OH NOOO NOT MY PHILOSOPHINOS NOOOOOOO!!!
Wittgenstein's destruction of their """philosophy""" is a righteous act. Their mental masturbation has wrought nothing.

>>15520754
Hacker is a hack. Read Goldfarb

>>15519084
1. Wittgenstein doesn't deny this.
2. Wittgenstein doesn't deny this.
3. Wittgenstein doesn't deny this.
4. How is this a challenge to Wittgenstein.
5. Right, and people think they understand the question "are those two events simultaneous, or aren't they?" Just because you're in the grip of a picture doesn't mean you understand what you're saying.
6. He was wrong about math; that's true.
7. That is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this board. You are a careless sloppy reader, and you have not dedicated yourself for more than ten minutes to the difficult task of thinking.

>>15519277
The poster you're replying to doesn't understand Witt, but you don't either.

>>15523491
>but his mom actually exists whether or not she is referred to or not.
prove it

>>15523491
>His remarks on Godel's work are criticized in this very way by actually smart people for showcasing wittgenstein's narrow understanding of what math is.
baesd and true, as a failed eng^neer witty was at least 2 orders of magnitude too dumb to actually understand math

>>15524190
cope. more non replys from a midwitt wittshit dipshit

>>15517354
They read Miles Mathis' scathing critique. It's over for the Wittgenstein industry.

>>15517354
His importance was invented. Everyone today doesn't care about him because there's nothing there but as residue from promotional campaigning in academia, he is 'regarded' as important or good and shafted into history.

>>15524374
This.

Wittgenstein is the hallmark of a pseud. A belligerant man with no regard for rigor or even a versimilitude of graceful thinking. His tracticus, an abismal work, showcased his narrow thinking (propositions a real). His followup work (philosophy investigator) showcased his category errors (language is a means to communication not a game). and his posthumous work (not publishing it during his lifetime is probably his one good decision) revealed the uncertainty he felt about his own work that he was too afraid to tell others about (endless series of "I want to say" instead of saying "x is the case" or proclaiming he solved all of philosophy). also he hated women and beat kids so fuck him

I will own all of you in debate on discord. I have James Ladyman on the line RIGHT NOW to disprove all of you, alongside me.

>>15517354
Postmodernism / Structuralism

>>15517357
Absolutely wrong. Maybe you should study it first before talking about it.

Wittgenstein can be used to defend identity politics. We need him more now than ever.

>>15524559
>>15524584
>>15524902
Take your meds.

>>15524346
>replys
Alright, I'll reply.

1. Find me anywhere that Wittgenstein denies that referents need to be referred to to exist. He does not say this. Do you actually think Wittgenstein is fucking dumb enough to say that we speak things into existence?
2. The challenge to skepticism that Wittgenstein offers has nothing to do with a subjective feeling of certainty. Rather, the point is much finer. Wittgenstein argues that a global skepticism does not make sense because the expression of doubt is divested of sense when stripped of the surrounding structure that gives the notion of doubt a use in our lives. Nothing to do with how sure you feel about something.
3. Yeah, fucking obviously. But philosophy is done in language. Seems like a pretty good place to start if you're trying to loosen the grip that philosophy has on you.
4. Again, so? That's not the task of a philosopher. This is an experimental question. It is not a priori.
5. If you read Wittgenstein carefully, you would notice that this is precisely the point. We think we understand this expression, because we know what "before" does in those places where it is properly used. But divest the word of the surroundings that give it sense and you are left with a seeming philosophical riddle. But the riddle is no riddle at all, because close inspection to the grammar of the word "before" shows you that it's nonsense. You know what "5 o'clock" means, and maybe this misleads you to think that you understand what "5 o'clock on the sun" is. But that is obviously nonsense. You're mistaken if you think Wittgenstein has anything at all to say about language processing.
6. I've granted that he makes a lot of mistakes when he talks about math.
7. Ugh. This is such an enraging point because it is so clear that this poster never read the Investigations with any care or detail. First of all, in 43, Wittgenstein actually says "For a large class of cases of the employment of the word 'meaning'–though not for all–this word can be explained in this way: the meaning of a word is its use in the language." Wittgenstein IS NOT saying that you cannot comprehend an expression except when it is put to use. But rather the meaning attaches to our expressions because of the role these expressions play in our lives. We understand what "the tree is big" means in a context like this (unasserted, although still, obviously, used), because we know what uses we put it to when we do use it. What kind of a bleeding idiot do you have to be to think that Wittgenstein is saying that a sentence is literally incomprehensible when it's running idle?

These ( >>15519084 ) are criticisms raised by an idiot who has not taken the time to think through these matters by himself. I'm sick of the level of philosophical discourse on this board. It is trash.

THIS GUY IS MY ROLE MODEL, HE'LL TURN YOU INTO AN ARTIST IF YOU UNDERSTAND. SERIOUSLY, GENIUS OR DEATH FUCK IT.

>>15526496
Tractatus is worthless, not talking about that. more like his WAY of investigating, not his poorly communicated books. his way of using analogies to understand is what im talking about

>>15526491
at least you tried

>>15526491
Great post, sorry you had to be the one to do it nigga.

>>15526801
replying to yourself LMAO you know we can see ips right?

this man reached superior conclusions than wittgenstein, nietzsche, hume

>>15518807
isn't quine the one who says this

>>15526904
This man singlehandedly assassinated my egotistical chasing after enlightenment. I was reading books, going to retreats, petitioning to join monastic orders and fretting incessantly while doing so. His writings, and the fact that you can purchase an enlightenment experience on a pad of paper that you stick on your tongue, rightly quashed my liberal exoticist spiritual masturbating.

>>15527034

did you completely give up that so called attainment? i don't think you were necessarily supposed to do that, although i understand why you did

>>15526770
what was wrong with his response

>>15527034

>Get enlightened after you stop chasing enlightenment

>>15526839
I you could see IPs you would see that we are two different people.

>>15526770
Alright buddy, sure. Thanks for the substantive criticism of my points. Good job.

>>15526801
Thank you, anon.

can someone please explain wittgenstein in retard terms, I can't fucking understand a single post itt

>>15517354
Analytic philosophy kinda devolved into utilitarianism, reductionism, empiricism, and positivism which turned out to be terrible at deriving value and meaning.
Great at formal logic problems, but terrible at figuring out the big philosophical questions like what we should do with our lives.

>>15518986
Wittgen(((STEIN)))
Every. Single. Time.