/lit/ - Literature

>>17616294
>yeah bro if we can´t talk to each other only through mathematical formulas than there´s no point in talking at all

Wittgenstein is the biggest bugman in all of philosophy

>>17616294
Wittgenstein will be forgotten in 100 years

>>17616294
What makes him söy?
He was awarded for bravery in combat and wrote about logic.
How many awards in combat and logic do you have?

>>17616324
>>17616332
Little minds poking the feet of a giant.

>>17616294
wittgenstein and pinker are bugmen.

>>17616346
Holy shit! He got a medal! I take it back, Wittgenstein BASED???

>>17616346
Lol he got a medal? That makes him even more onions. Real war heroes are blood thirsty lunatics who slaughter people in such a grotesque way that it would be unthinkable to present them with a medal

>>17616358
He got a metal for FIGHTING IN A WAR.
A particularly nasty one at that.
Which wars have you fought in, tough guy?

>>17616367
Are you 12-years-old or something? lmao
No military is going to put up with some psycho acting crazy.

>>17616369
Woah... he fought in a war with 60 million other soldiers. That must've taken some guts

>>17616381
Exactly, the military is for "moral" ŚÖŸ boys like Wittgenstein

>>17616346
>What makes him söy?
Probably his crude appeal to logic.

*blocks his path *

>>17616294
He was a competent logician who, whether awarely or not, devolved into sophism.

>>17616346
Imagine simping for bugmanstein

ngmi

>>17616294
http://mileswmathis.com/russ.pdf
You're welcome.

>>17616389
And how many were awarded for bravery?
Which wars have you fought in?
>>17616390
lol, you would wash out in a week, cupcake
>>17616391
The Western philosophical tradition is based on logic. This is a problem for you? Maybe philosophy isn’t your thing. Maybe romantic comedy novellas are more your speed.

>>17616324
>>17616399
Imagine not reading the Philosophical Investigations

>>17616399
It’s nothing close to sophism. You probably don’t even understand it.

>>17616444
>And how many were awarded for bravery?
All of them. Because fighting in a war, any war, constitutes a round of applause by you

>>17616444
>The Western philosophical tradition is based on logic. This is a problem for you?
Not for me. I was just trying to shed light on the OP. The /r9k/ kiddies hate logic and science.

>>17616393
They have more in common than you think. Atleast the Wittgenstein from the PI

>>17616458
It doesn’t. But if someone was awarded for bravery in combat, then I have a hard time believing they’re söy.

>>17616460
The reactionaries don’t like him because he was a gay Jew. But he was a legit genius and his influence is not any sort of conspiracy whatsoever. Philosophers of all stripes have been grappling with ideas for 100 years now.

>>17616294
>waah wah I can't make a distinction without language!

...I kneel.

Wittgenstein is centuries ahead of where my current reading is. Can I have a synopsis on him and names of his biggest influencers?

>>17616485
See >>17616441

>>17616294
Reddit the philosopher

>>17616551
I saw, that’s why I said what I said.
His ideas are profound. Stop being obsessed with him as a person for a minute.

>>17616455
Caducated gibberish pretending to be linguistics. It might stand the test of time as surrealist art tho.

>>17616728
Linguistics? You’re an idiot.

>>17616743
And you know nothing therefore you expatiate on nothing.

>tfw Wittgenstein refuted all tradcath philosophy without even trying and saved me from the philosophical dead end of being tradcath
based Ludwig

>>17616702
The seven propositions in Tractatus:
1.The world is everything that is the case.
2.What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
3.A logical picture of facts is a thought.
4.A thought is a proposition with a sense.
5.A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth function of itself.)
6.The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function.
7.Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
So fucking profound. Sophistry + basic logic told with some fancy words.

>>17616543
Read Ray Monk's bio on him. It's very good.

>>17616543
schopenahuer (kant) tolstoy russell and frege. kierkegaard is hardly noticeable in his work imo. hes pretty good but if he werent an unculture swine he wouldve been better

>>17616937
Thanks for reiterating you don’t understand the thing you hate for some inexplicable reason.

>>17616294
he's def not based, but also def not onions
the dude beat children... idk what to say

>>17616937
Exactly, but they use him to promote transgenderism

>>17616967
Thanks for letting me know that you are a midwit who got carried away by some fancy words written by a fag. And now you don't want to admit this fag is a pseud because you already sunk in a lot of time to go through all of his work.

>>17616975
>the dude beat children
Sounds based to me

>>17616937
That's only a brief summary of like the first 2 chapters, if that. Glossing over a LOT.

>>17616939
>when Wittgenstein goes to Norway

>>17616954
>schopenahuer
Huh? Nah.

Kierkgaard isn’t relevant either.

>>17617008
you're an idiot =) please dont respond to the thread

>>17616294
You'd never catch him doing the soi mouth gesture let alone smile. Also he fought in WW1, soldiering is very unsoi

>>17617008
Wittgenstein literally viewed himself in conversation with Kierkgaard while in Norway, but okay

>>17616995
Who cares if he was a fag? You don’t even seem to understand what he said. You just quoted him and said it sucked with no elaboration or any indication you understood any of it.

>>17617032
... don't forget. He was a child-beater and pederast too. Yay !!!

>>17617027
He liked Kierkegaard quite a bit, but he didn’t really write about those topics in his own work. I’m not sure how that would prepare you for Wittgenstein’s own philosophy.

>>17617032
Oh I get it. You've sunk so much time into this fag's work that you don't want to admit the "knowledge" you gained is elementary logic told via sophistry and deliberately obscure language. No problem anon. Carry on. Sorry to bother.

>>17617077
So it’s both elementary logic and obscurantism?
I think the style is much clearer than you’re giving it credit for, being analytic and all.

If anyone wants to hear an actual discussion of the philosophy, check this out:
https://youtu.be/qm1XcODLKvk

Not quite as simple as our tradcath friend is making it sound.

>>17617117
nonononono
i cannot do a philosophical overdose rabbit hole tour again

>>17617117
Oh yes. A video promoting massive sophists: Russell and Wittgenstein. It is elementary logic told via obscurantist language. You couldn't even hold that argument in your brain. And I'm a tradcath now apparently. Just admit it: Wittgenstein is a fag, a child beater, a pederast and most importantly a massive pseud.

>>17616543
Philosophy isn’t finding answers but finding the right questions, rethinking the way we use language will get us questions with easy answers.

>>17617162
"Chomsky: I’d read Wittgenstein differently. I take him to be saying that we should not be misled by ordinary usage. It is fine for normal life, but science — our effort to understand the world — goes its own ways, which didn’t seem to interest him much. Of course there won’t be any theory of language in his sense, or “theory of functions of the human faculties,” just as there won’t be any theory of “the way we live.” There is no such thing as “the study of everything” in rational inquiry, including the sciences. Physics does not study everything that is going on in the world — or practically ANYTHING that is going on in the world (that’s why scientists do experiments, after all). The world is vastly too complex to study in a serious way. But I don’t see any particular insight in this; sounds to me like truism."

Most of what Wittgenstein expresses, besides his core competency of formal logic, are truisms that scientifically lead no where.

>>17617077
I agree with this anon. Someone try and prove him wrong

>>17617213
wittgenstein was a mystic afterall

ITT: fags that only read the Tractatus ignore Wittgenstein's actual ideas as shown in the Philosophical Investigations

>>17617213
Source btw: https://chomsky.info/2000____-2/

>>17617162
Based on what? You won’t even engage with his ideas.

>>17617338
what are some of these ideas? I've heard of the beetle thing but that's about it

>>17616294
>get a medal for bravery, live in mountains of Norway for a long period of time, be skilled engineer, get accapted to Oxford and write the most oftenly cited book in humanities written in 20th century
>60 years later neet on mongolian basket-weaving forum calls you onions

>>17617213
Meanwhile chomsky thinks that a single mutation caused our capacity for language and that all languages must have the same underlying structure (universal grammar). Both these ideas are not credited that much anymore, so it looks like Wittgenstein and his strongly anti-dogmatic approach to language was actually ahead of chomsky.

>reading a man that openly stated he forgot what he meant in some of his own passages

>>17616998
It's literally the whole book. Everything else in the Tractatus is an elaboration on one of those statements.

>>17616954
>>17617008
>>17617059
>He who knows how to keep silent discovers an alphabet that has just as many letters as
the ordinary one

>>17618332
Badiou gets it, you clearly do not: versobooks. c o m /books/1181-wittgenstein-s-antiphilosophy

>>17616294
I think he's based but only because he makes set theorists seethe.

>ITT plebs who only read Tractatus but avoided philosophical investigations and language games
you will never be a rural schoolchild severely punished by Lord Wittgenstein

>>17619327
>imagine thinking the tractatus has actual philosophical relevance apart from being used too attempt to justify the vienna circle's intuitions

>>17619339
>imagine not being able to read a simple sentence
dude that's my point lmao!

>>17616441
>http://mileswmathis.com/russ.pdf
literally schizo-tier

>>17617213
>Most of what Wittgenstein expresses, besides his core competency of formal logic, are truisms that scientifically lead no where.
this totally consistent with his metaphilosophy

>>17619485
Deleuze on Wittgenstein: « Pour moi c’est une catastrophe philosophique […] c’est une régression massive de toute la philosophie […] S’ils l’emportent, alors là il y aura un assassinat de la philosophie s’ils l’emportent. C’est des assassins de la philosophie. Il faut une grande vigilance. »