/lit/ - Literature

>>22674757
> Has there ever even been a good jewish philosopher at all?
Spinoza but he was hated by Jews themselves due to “blasphemy”, so he’s anti Jewish, actually.

>>22674757
>and why his "philosophy" is so fucking bad...
Why's it bad?

>>22674790
he didn't get it

>>22674785
ive heard about him before i think. the pantheist guy

>>22674790
very unsatisfactory. its like throwing the table over because youre bad at the game. typical jewish revolutionary spirit now that i think of it.

>>22674757
>go to uni
>freshman.jpeg
>don't edit my papers ever
>everyone likes this guy
>i don't 'get' it
>all my papers have low grades because they are 'basically summaries'
>mfw

I don't think you comprehend the implications of Wittgenstein's philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution

>>22674797
What were you expecting?

>>22674757
I have heard from multiple chuds on this board that they consider Husserl an honorary gentile.

>>22674757
The fact that one of the most brilliant minds of his time can be chucked away as "just another jew" is really, really depressing honestly.

>>22674849
>What were you expecting?
Not much t bh. From the beginning I was intuitively opposed to this philosophical fixation with language. After reading a lil bit more about his ideas they became more ridiculous to me.
The rejection of metaphysics and focus on empiricism is off putting.
For example according to him if a statement cannot be connected to a possible empirical or logical observation, it lacks meaning. I disagree.
If Id care enough I could easily debunk all his shit, im sure.

>>22674902
never heard of him. ill check his wikipedia. thanks

>>22674757
Wittgenstein was an authoritrain chud. Also he was more Austrian than Jewish

>When, in the ’twenties, Russell wanted to establish, or join, a ‘World Organization for Peace and Freedom’ or something similar, Wittgenstein rebuked him so severely, that Russell said to him: ‘Well, I suppose you would rather establish a World Organization for War and Slavery’, to which Wittgenstein passionately assented: ‘Yes, rather that, rather that!’48

>>22674906
>one of the most brilliant minds of his time
language is a tool to transfer information. sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesnt.
its really not that deep.

>>22674930
>more Austrian than Jewish
many such cases with Austrian Jews I've noticed

>>22674902
Husserl was from old stock from the land that might only have residual levantine blood. More importantly he was Christian, and came from a family that had abandoned both rabbinical religion and ethnic larp before he was born. He's a Jew according to nazi retards and no one else (not even himself). Compare to Bergson had connection to Jewish life from infancy before becoming Christian late in life so I'd understand classifying him as such. Those are the only two philosophical "Jews" of real interest.
Wittgenstein is even less of a Jew, he's only counted as one to fill up lists of chosenites by nazi chuds looking for the enemy under the bed and zionists boosting the number of famous Jews to fulfills their supremacist mindset.

>>22674928
>The rejection of metaphysics and focus on empiricism is off putting.
Okay, now we're getting to the meat on the bone.

Metaphysics is difficult to talk about because, so far as I understand, it's practically unfalsifiable.

>For example according to him if a statement cannot be connected to a possible empirical or logical observation, it lacks meaning
Kind of, the "games" people play with metaphysical stuff are tricky. Wittgenstein himself says that religious truth cannot be communicated, but that it CAN BE "REVEALED" to people.

And this makes sense, right? You can't "communicate" a person into having faith in God. They either get it or they don't. You can persuade them, you could appeal to the tautologies contained within logic systems (which any sensible person recognized, Wittgenstein included), butultimately I don't think what Wittgenstein is saying here is controversial, even if you believe in God.

It's been a long time since I've read Wittgenstein, I might chug a few coffees and skim some wikipedia so it comes back to me.

>If Id care enough I could easily debunk all his shit, im sure.
Not trying to be mean anon, but I'd be wary of falling victim to Dunning-Kruger.

What books about Wittgenstein did you read?

>>22675012
>falling victim to Dunning-Kruge
lolsker

>What books about Wittgenstein did you read?
"Wittgenstein in 60 minutes" and his wikipedia article

weininger and Spinoza are Jewish and they’re both lovable
and as far as impact is concerned Marx may as well have been the messiah

>>22675043
>>What books about Wittgenstein did you read?
>"Wittgenstein in 60 minutes" and his wikipedia article
Literally me

Check out Sea of Faith short docu too

>>22675012
He sounds interesting. Where do I start with him?

>>22675043
>wikipedia and YouTube video
>thinks he could out argue literally any philosopher
Peak dunning-Kruger

>>22674996
>>22674992
Husserl is another one.
The Austro-Hungarian empire really was good at assimilating their Jewish population, making them feel more Austrian/German than Jewish, a lot of them end up converting to Christianity, enlisting to fight for the empire and end up being really nostalgic for the emperor after the war.

>>22675043

>>22675043
Okay. I'm gonna type at you and it's going to be messy and half-baked, so bear with me. I'm also a midwit so if anybody actually intelligent wants to chime in at any time to correct me, I welcome it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

This was the school of thought Wittgenstein adhered to during his early Tractatus period. This was an incredibly blunt form of Empiricism based on a kind of crude Determinism: if you know the angle and speed at which a rock will be thrown, you can know where it lands.

Wittgenstein thought that language worked this way as well, and that if we could map out a massive grid of each material thing in the world known to us at the time and the way in which we refer to it at the time, that we could take all of that and use that to make predictions about the thoughts of other people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_theory_of_language

Anything that couldn't be described empirically was "meaningless", because its referent could not be properly communicated.

From what I remember, he backed away from this big time in his later career, especially around the time he came up with the language game stuff. This pissed the scientific types off to no end, because in their minds it left too much room open for metaphysical thinking.

I think it's a common misconception that "language games" mean that we can just make meaning up out of nothing, we can make anything mean anything we want at any time that suits us, yada yada...

This is TECHNICALLY true, but practically impossible for the most part. Meaning is something we construct through referents and consensus with others: a word MUST refer to something that is understood by another person or else it becomes "private language" and amounts to schizo babble.

"Meaning" emerges as the result of a tension that exists between observers. It can't be boiled down to mere empirical fact.

This was actually novel for its time, and corresponded with discoveries within Analytic Philosophy and the "Cognitive Sciences" that would absorb its findings.

Will post a bit more in a bit.

>>22675096
>that we could take all of that and use that to make predictions about the thoughts of other people.
Oh very importantly, Wittgenstein also thought that we could use this Picturing system to clear up "misunderstandings" between people such that it would increase good-will among all men. He regarded the essential problem of humanity as one of "misunderstanding", which is necessarily (according to him) one of "poor communication".

>>22675080
>The Austro-Hungarian empire really was good at assimilating their Jewish population, making them feel more Austrian/German than Jewish,
Trakl too

Wittgenstein fought for the Austria and won several medals

>>22675076
>early Tractatus period
>Determinism: if you know the angle and speed at which a rock will be thrown, you can know where it lands.
>Wittgenstein thought that language worked this way as well
>Anything that couldn't be described empirically was "meaningless", because its referent could not be properly communicated.
>essential problem of humanity as one of "misunderstanding", which is necessarily one of "poor communication"

Yeah I dont know much about the stuff he wrote later but these ideas just dont sit well with me personally.
I wont bother with it.

>>22674757
Anglos are the midwitt race. Remember that those fucks unironically thought that Richard Dawkins was profound just two decades ago.

As much as I hate to admit it, Heidegger was right. Only the greeks and the germans ever managed to birth philosophers. Everything else is pseud garbage.

>>22675096

=> >>22675152

>>22675159
>Only the greeks and the germans ever managed to birth philosophers
I unironically think Germans have an advatage on philosophy due to the nature of the German language.

>>22675169
good point

>>22675096
>>22675110
Posting a bit more.

Physics is stuff that moves. Metaphysics is stuff that doesn't move. Unfortunately for us in our world, everything is moving all the time. Everywhere. Forever.

Everything is thus "imperfect" according to religious/metaphysical thinking, everything is "becoming" something else and barely ever "being" one thing alone.

The root of a lot of western metaphysical thinking goes back to a guy named Heraclitus, and as a reaction after him Plato. You may know the Heraclitus quote: "you never step into the same river twice."

People at the time took this to mean that everything material is DISINTERGRATING, DEGENERATING. Plato's Theory of Forms is what it is precisely because it needed to contend with an imperfect, degenerating world from his perspective. He surmised that we must gain our ideas for the imperfect material stuff on this earth by accessing a world of Forms by applying Reason: we cannot draw a perfect circle in this material world, but the 'Form' of a circle that we use to draw our crude material ones IS a perfect circle.

These are the immediate implications of this thought:

1. stuff is degenerating as time progresses
2. the further back you go, the less "degenerated" stuff was, the more "perfect"

Will post more soon.

>>22675152
Yeah, they didn't sit well with Wittgenstein either after a time and he came up with the framework of Language Games to account for all the gaps in his earlier work, including the Metaphysical ones.

>>22674757
Has there ever even been a good jewish philosopher at all?
Husserl
During the time of Marx when every pisspot shouted "Back to Hegel!" parried with "Back to the things themselves!" fucking maniac

Wittgenstein's legacy is rather small, his has only two finished works one contradicting another the fact that he got the spotlight of late says more about the academia than about him

>>22675190
The last thing, and this will be the post that angers people and the one most likely open to challenge, is that off the back of this metaphysical fixation on "perfect" stuff, on "objectivity", we miss the forest for the trees.

You are going to get very angry reading this, and I understand:
There is no "objective morality". There is no "moral law", so to speak.

What I mean by that is, "human morality" does not exist independent of human observation. If humans did not exist, human morality would not exist. Period.

For something to be "objective", it must exist outside of human observation. Our moral tastes do not.

Now we come to the main problem: if morality is subjective, then everything is permissible right?

Well, technically yes. But practically no.

Morality is another language game. In one society it's moral to beat women for certain things, in others it is not. This is the result of thousands of years of custom. You could say that it doesn't mean anything because it's arbitrary, but good luck with that. People take meaning very seriously, to the extent that I'm sure if we discovered intelligent alien life in our universe our religious/metaphysical frameworks would find new interpretations in order to absorb the new fact that aliens exist.

This gets even tougher when you try to say stuff with material referents is "arbitrary" because it's nested within a language game. Try and call the colour Blue the colour Orange to somebody, and they'll say "nigger what the fuck are you going on about?"

Just because language games emerge "arbitrarily" does not mean that everything is therefore "meaningless", or that cats can suddenly become dogs. Not without massive, overwhelming campaigns of convincing and consensus, anyway.

tl;dr to all this shit - Wittgenstein is worth contending with, and the linguistic turn, like it or not, represented a stunning advancement that people easily take for granted today, especially with all the cucks plying "relativism" to get their way rhetorically.

>>22675080
Austria yes. France and Italy assimilated Jews even more. Italy was some of the most Jewish land after the 15-16th century expulsion and there were tons in France. By the mid 19th century they had almost disappeared without massacre or persecution or immigration. The current Jews in France are virtually all migrants from Eastern Europe in the 19-20th century and North Africans after decolonization, they are not the descendants of historical French jewry, and Italy only had a minor residual Jewish community by 1900.
The simple reason is that those were Catholic lands and the popes had decided to make it a priority to evangelize them and had good long term strategy for it. Protestants didn't talk to Jews until something like 1840 and almost immediately became dispensationalist golems, while eastern orthodoxes (and poles) lived in full segregation until the soviet revolution.

>The truly apocalyptic view of the world is that things do not repeat themselves. It isn’t absurd, e.g., to believe that the age of science and technology is the beginning of the end for humanity; that the idea of great progress is delusion, along with the idea that the truth will ultimately be known; that there is nothing good or desirable about scientific knowledge and that mankind, in seeking it, is falling into a trap. It is by no means obvious that this is not how things are.
>
The great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.
>Man has to awaken to wonder - and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again
He was based and kaczynski pilled before his time

>>22675397
>The great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.
YES.

A massive misconception by people like OP is that his Language Games were a mechanism by which to snuff out metaphysical thinking, but that's not true. Language Games were developed as a response to positivist, deterministic sociological models that fell way short of describing why meaning emerges and how it is communicated.

I've said it already, but seeing this guy get written off as some fucking "Jew" is despicable.

>>22674757
>Has there ever even been a good jewish philosopher at all?

Marx, Freud, Lukács, Frankfurt School

>>22674757
Because he successfully solved philosophy and then singlehandedly refuted his own solution.

>>22674757
Nice bait nigga.

>>22675246
GREAT effort post, Anon. I've read Wittgenstein before, but I think you make one of the best cases for how Wittgenstein led the anti-positivistic movement in analytic philosophy, and why he shouldn't be thought of as just a mediocre version of Nietzsche (who is himself also a heavily misunderstood thinker).

>>22675169
How so?

>>22677308
I'm a believer of the theory that language shapes how we perceive reality.
On German:
The ease of using the rules of the language in the creation of neologisms. Like all those long words we meme the Germans about, but make complete sense and shape the way Germans make linguistic and logic relations. It's the language of Schadenfreude and Handschuh (glove is literally hand + shoe)

Then you go through things like this in Husserl
lebnis = verb, to live, or to experience
Lebnis = noun, life
add in the intensifier er- and you get
Erlebnis = which sort of translates to: experience of life

Just think of all the compound words you can make with "Welt"

To me it seems like the rules of the German language really lend it to a lot of abstract and complex thought, and more importantly, to better communicate said thoughts to someone else.