/lit/ - Literature

Moot hired a posse, hunted his shit down, and ended him.

Be careful.

>>5376618
– There must be elementary 'simple propositions' which are fully analysed.
– An elementary proposition is a combination of names depicting a state of affairs.
– It is logically independent, it cannot entail another or contradict another,.
– If p → Q, then Q would have to be a constituent of P, and P would be complex...
– The very nature of analysis means there must be simple propositions!
– If analysis went forever... what is it built on? Turtles on turtles, all the way down?

>>5376629
He gave me his email if I had questions, I emailed him twice these last months but to no avail. He had brilliant insight on Wittgenstein and I want to study him.

Did moot just hunt another guy down?

I wasn't around for it but I'd be interested in getting involved if you are starting again

>>5376705
I would hope that it could start again. I just started on philosophy in university and would like to study Witt with someone from the internet if I can't find real people

Oh i remember it. I was in the middle of my wittgenstein readings, the remarks on the foundations of maths specifically, when it started. I only went to the group twice i think...

You gonna read PI again or more stuff? How about some of his lectures or conferences?

>>5376618
I'm just finishing up Monk's critical biography. I'd be interested in reading P.I and exchanging emails or chatting.

>>5377075
I had hoped for Avinite or "That guy who knows about Wittgenstein on /lit/" could give us some pointers.
For example, we could do something like "read x secondary literature in some weeks" and we discuss it lightly, before we start PI or the remarks on the foundations of maths (which I want to read as well) or in whatever fits best. I have no idea on what to read as of yet, I just want it to get started again, and then read whatever. There are some of the people he appointed to take care of his writings that linked some of it to Aristotle and Aquinas, my teacher talked about this as well in a book, I would perhaps like to discuss some of these (normal non acknowledged) relations to Witt.

I remember a picture I saved from here, on what ranking you should read Wittgenstein in, I would like something like that.

Generally just talk about this sort of stuff, and getting some reading done.

I'd be down to join in seeing as I just started my second read through of PI yesterday. Should be fun if the meetings coincide with my free time. I hung around for a couple meetings last time but school and work got in the way (as I suspect they will again).

>monitoring_this_thread.jpg

>>5376618
i remember that shit. i couldn't keep participating b/c i got a job, did you guys ever end up finishing PI?

>>5379169
I don't know I couldn't make it to all the readings and I don't know if it was finished. I got some logs but they're up to 100 in PI and I know I read to 200 and some.

>>5379119
>I remember a picture I saved from here, on what ranking you should read Wittgenstein in, I would like something like that.
This?

>>5379169
No we didn't finish
We got to about 220

I'm interested in joining this group. I missed the first one, but I'm familiar enough to pick up. Is there going to be an IRC channel or just threads?

Ive read every book published from Wittgensteins notes, which is like 10 books and 1700 pages. I feel pretty knowledgeable on Wittgenstein and would be interested in re-reading his material as part of a group.

Email me.

>>5379217
What does the guy who made this pic think of Kripke

My route through Wittgenstein was

The Problems of Philosophy - Russell
Tractatus - Wittgenstein
Foundations of Arithmetic - Frege
Philosophical Grammar - Wittgenstein
Sense and Reference - Frege
On Denoting - Russel
Principia Ethica - Moore
Culture and Values - Wittgenstein
Proof of an External World - Moore
Defense of Common Sense - Moore
On Certainty - Wittgenstein
Naming and Necessity - Kripke
Lectures on the foundations of Mathematics - Wittgenstein
Lectures on Aesthetics - Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein, a memoir - Norman Malcolm
Lecture on Ethics - Wittgenstein
Lectures on Logical Atomism - Russell
Philosophical Remarks - Wittgenstein
Philosophical Investigations - Wittgenstein
On Concept and Object - Frege
Function and Concept - Frege
Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus - Anscombe
The Elements of Ethics - Russell
On Propositions - Russell
Begriffsschrift - Frege

I find it weird >>5379217 suggests not reading Frege or Russell first. I just jumped into the tractatus and I found it confusing as fuck. If I did my journey again I would start with Frege and Russell. My favorite over all was Philosophical Grammar. I find Philosophical Investigations to be over rated (though still great). In my opinion, Wittgenstein was most interesting when he talked about math.

I was Pooka. I'd be interested in doing it again, one of my housemates would be interested as well.

I can try to contact Avinite as well, but if you've emailed already not sure. Not seem him in person since the group.

>>5376866
Are we not real people?

>>5379501
Hopefully an IRC channel.
>>5379758
I'll save this and throw you an email. I'd be interested in reading Wittgenstein extensively as well and I'd like to hear what people who read/know Wittgenstein has to say
>>5380819
I was Nicolet, I don't know if I have his right email, please contact him if you can. You can have my email if this thread dies/gets deleted. Thomas1nicolet@gmail.com
>>5380862
No of course not

Don't know what is this.
Interested.
Need short summary.

>just wittgenstein or others as well?
>every work or selected?
>what do we talk about? whether everybody got everything? different interpretations?

>>5379707
>>5379707
That's, like, one of my life goals. I've read Tractatus, PI, Lecture on Ethics, On Certainty,
and the biography by Ray Monk

>>5380941
>just wittgenstein or others as well?
Studying Wittgenstein, which might involve reading other philosophers. We do what we must.
>every work or selected?
Selected works. We might read every if it's selected, doh. I'd like the wiser in the group to decide how and what we do. The entire existence and progress of this group will realistically be on the shoulders of the ones who have read/understood the most.

>what do we talk about? whether everybody got everything? different interpretations?
We talk about what we read, what we understood/didn't understand, hopefully someone can come with some insight like Avinite did last time. Last group, Avinite generally laid out the landscape of thought concerning the weeks reading, and people discussed it afterwards, Avinite included.

>>5380988
>>5380988
Come join the group then.
I have expectations of studying philosophy for the next five years, and in that time I should have time to read a lot of Wittgenstein, whether it be for personal studies or related to class. My old philosophy teacher translated some of his works and also wrote something on him.
>tfw we will be known as the 4chan circle

I was never part of it but I was talking to an Anon once who I assume was Avinite, and he sent me the logs of the discussions. Anyone interested?

>>5381002
I have the logs including works and assorted material from the "Wittgenstein study group". We can pass it around if we get the group started.

is smoking pot a pre-requisite to membership of this hallowed group?

T 1381614104 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 Did anyone play the original Pokemon games?
T 1381614110 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 And you remember, the ice areas?
T 1381614120 #18#<#Pooka#>## yep
T 1381614122 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 Where one could only move in straight lines and be stopped by blocks?
T 1381614133 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 And they were little sokoban-type puzzles I guess
T 1381614142 #18#<#Nicolet#>## uh yeah
T 1381614146 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 Lemniscate makes me want to think about logic in this way
T 1381614154 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 You can slide from proposition to proposition according to certain rules
T 1381614161 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 In straight and defined ways
T 1381614171 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 And maybe there's a route back to the rough ground of normal progression
T 1381614179 #18#<#Nicolet#>## Well, mostly when you apply it unto actuality though?
T 1381614185 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 And people are floundering around on the ice
T 1381614195 #31#<#Avinite#>###30 But Wittgenstein wants to show that it's an unsolvable puzzle.
>pokemon wisdom

>>5381018
to answer your question
>>5381021

>>5376618
I'm in.

I would suggest to start with basics at first we need to understand what philosophy is and why it is important, I have been studying on it for about a year and a half but so that everybody is on the same page I suggest we start with homer, Socrates, Plato, Ect.

And also where will all this take place?

>>5381042
It will take place on the internet in any form we can meet in it.
Last time, it was for everyone. With an interest in Wittgenstein, you will probably know something about philosophy, but if you don't, come anyway. You wont have to read through everyone up to him, but we will hope people have a general idea of what the philosophers up to Wittgenstein has been saying. We will discuss what we need to underway. Also
>Homer, Socrates, Plato
Why not just say Plato? Besides, we are not studying this in a philosophy history's historiographic way, we are just studying Wittgenstein.

>>5381042
It's just a Wittgenstein group tho. As such I think it's assumed that people should already have some background in philosophy

>>5381055
Yeah I understand what you mean. The reason I mentioned going to basics was we have to fundamentally understand them, I've tried other philosophical study groups before and this is where they have failed in their search for the understanding of philosophy/truth. And I'm not saying to study it in a historical point of view but on how it has evolved within itself. But I'm still up for it

>>5381082
You're new to philosophy aren't you?

>>5381112
No I'm not. Trying to throw a helping hand to get everybody on the same page, I'm not an expert but I think that would help in some way. But like I said if that's not what the group wants I'm fine with that, I have pretty good understanding of philosophy.

>>5381082
I don't know man, let's just make the group and we can talk about the problems then.
If we were to read Kierkegaard, we could just read Kierkegaard and discuss or read excerpts of where he references Platon, Aristoteles, Hegel, the Bible and so on, and even if we did start with these characters, we could just read a chapter or two where it's necessary. Interestingly, Wittgenstein probably read Kierkegaard as well.

The only basics we will need is the general notion of the history of philosophy and the ability to reason. Bring your intellect and we should be fine. If you cannot comprehend the theoretical problems arising in mathematics at the same time, then Wittgenstein might not be for you anyway, but I'm sure we will be fine and if not, people will just leave.

>tl;dr we have enough to read of Wittgenstein, let's leave it at that

>>5381144
Cool I'm fine with that man.

How often will we meet?
And again where?

I'm a busy person so I can set me schedule to fit the group in

>>5381144
> Interestingly, Wittgenstein probably read Kierkegaard as well
He did. He learned Danish so he could read him, and said he was "2deep4me". No really, you can look it up.

>>5381162

I just made the IRC channel #4chanWittgenstein

>>5381169
I know, I just understated it a bit. I heard that Wittgenstein, as we know read not much of philosophy, but probably read Kierkegaard with the greatest effect. The negative aspects of Kierkegaard, in the sense that the most of the time didn't try to create a system but to break them, seems to have been transferred to W. as well. I discussed Kierkegaard a lot with Avinite I remember, as he knew Wittgensten and as a Dane I had some understand of Kierkegaard

>>5381173
Any info on how to join? I got IRC open, but not sure how to join a channel

>>5381173
How often are we gonna meet up?

>>5381217
We need to get some groundwork for what to read, how to cut it up to readable parts, and what we want from the discussion. We could model this off the last group study (someone mentioned they had the logs) so we can see in what way they partitioned off P.I. and copy them. Or if we do a different work (many mentions of W's mathematical work have been made, but I'm not familiar with that work (I am about to buy it when I saw the thread though)).

So basically, what we read and how we read it should determine how often we meet to my mind.

Should we take a vote on what work to begin with and go from there?

>>5381042
Everyone should take a minute to laugh at this post

>>5381241
At the moment all this will go away when the thread is deleted. So we need to get the group together and go from there with occasional adversitement of /lit/.

I got the log and can show what we read at least up to 128 in PI, and I think meeting once or twice a week would be optimal, at a time where most people can join, with a reading load that most people can get through.
I'd like to get through the text fast, but slow enough to understand it optimally and slow enough to fit it into my studies.
All this should be voted for by the groups members, and hopefully we will get one or two smart persons who can so-so tell us what to read, like Avinite last group or that "read-all-of-W.-guy"

>>5381267
Is anyone in the IRC posted above? We can get all the serious people in there and work it all out.

>>5381184
>>5381169
>>5381144

Yeah this is my understanding. I am pretty sure he didnt read any Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates. In Norman Malcolm's memoir of Wittgenstein, he shares a few letters where Wittgenstein says he tried to read Kirkegaard but it was 'too deep for him' (>>5381169). He also said Wittgenstein never read Hume because he found it too unbearable.

Its not surprising. Analytic Philosophy is a distinct and young tradition. I would say it started with Frege, who died less than 100 years ago, and knew Wittgenstein personally. Frege wasnt building off anyone, he was totally original.

>>5381209

iunno. I just typed '/join #4chanWittgenstein' on freenode dot net.. I am in the channel now with another guy.

>>5381217

I dont know. Im relying on OP.

>>5381283
Is it on freenode? Not rizon?

>>5381304

Yeah, freenode. #4chanWittgenstein

I hope I set it up right. I dont know much about IRC.

#wittgenstein is the channel we used last time

>>5381349
Can we just use it again?

I'll be leaving for some time, this thread has now been bumped to last for weeks on /lit/ though.

We will be trying to get the group together later tonight, and talk about it perhaps later tonight, on what to do and how to get new members. I assume we will be talking about practical stuff and letting people know about it for a week or so and have our first meeting then.

Out

I think I joined. I'm Ferdia

What book are you guys interested in reading?

Tractatus?

Im Lostinthought

Some of the guys in #4chanWittgenstein want to read On Certainty. I threw out the idea of reading a little GE Moore as prerequisite.

What do you think thread?

>>5379707
>10 books

i think you might be missing a couple. plus, the conversations, lectures and 1st hand testimonies are not to neglect. also, the way in which his notes have been published in form of books is not always the best considering W's writings.

this book has a quite complete bibliography of 1ary sources (after the preface) http://www.amazon.com/Wittgenstein-Critical-Reader-Hans-Johann-Glock/dp/0631194371#reader_0631194371

and what about 2ndary lit? i think one needs some sort of guidance through his texts cause approaching them as if one were reading a regular philosopher is a waste of time. finding good stuff is quite a task tho, cause there is a huge amount of books about him and 90% are pure crap. the most insightful commentators i have found are bouveresse, chauviré and schulte.

>>5381463

I don't know. Not sure there's much more to it than Moore's paradox. Or which work would you suggest?

>>5381499

Yeah, actually I might have exaggerated a bit. I only books I havent read that I am aware of are 'Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics', and 'Volumes on the Philosophy of Psychology'. These books share some content with Philosophical Remarks and Philosophical Investigations though. So you could technically say I have read half of those book.

>and what about 2ndary lit?

I think many of Wittgenstein's peers (Russell, Frege, Moore) are great too. If by secondary lit you meant like writings on Wittgenstein, I would agree that more of it is crap. I liked Anscombe's introduction to the Tractatus however, but Anscombe has the advantage of being Wittgenstein's friend and even is the one who compiled Philosophical Investigations into its published form. Similarly Norman Malcolm's memoir of Wittgenstein is interesting, but again he was Wittgenstein's friend.

>>5381502

If you are just getting started I guess the Tractatus, ideally with some understanding of Russell or Frege. Thats my recommendation. I am up for whatever anyone wants to read though.

Wittgenstein was a pretty strong critic of Moore's paradox and his Hand argument. I was kind of confused on that point after reading OC. In Norman Malcolm's memoir he quotes Wittgenstein more clearly expressing his disagreement and rivalry with GE Moore, that I dont think is clear in some of Wittgenstein's writing on the topic.

We are discussing this in #4chanWittgenstein on freenode dot net.

Right now the plan is about 100-200 paragraphs of OC a week, meeting on Sundays in the channel.

I could take transcripts and we could discuss both in chat and via email.

Don't change the IRC channel name anymore pls. Night, people.

-J

The channel came to a conclusion.

We are meeting at 6pm GMT on September 7th in #4chanWittgenstein. Before coming to Meeting #0, please read the first 100 sections of On Certainty. Also as optional prerequisite, you can read GE Moore's 'A Defense of Common Sense' and 'Proof of an External World', which are two short essays which On Certainty is written in the context of.

Here are some links:

On Certainty
http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=EA8DFCC83912DC07F42BD015E0D1F912

A Defense of Common Sense
http://www.ditext.com/moore/common-sense.html

Proof of an External World
http://www.hist-analytic.com/MooreExternalWorld.pdf

>>5381677
Sorry I had to go. I'm glad decisions were made. I saw you had written about what you assumed people had read. Let's assume that people have a general knowledge about Wittgenstein and his works and general philosophy, but not specific details in books.

I have read his Tractatus, Blue/Brown books and up to 220 in PI + "How to read W." by R. Monk.

Depending on how much 100 sections is, it sounds great, I've always wanted to read OC, even before I learned about Wittgenstein, as the subject itself, certainty, has some prowess to it.

I'll see you all in the IRC chat, I hope we can use both the IRC chat and Skype / Email.

Let's make sure that we don't loose each other and that the group splits up like last time, we need be, we should rather take breaks some weeks instead of having 2 people attending a meet.

Bumpin. #4chanWittgenstein is still going.

>>5382119

Someone in the channel said On Certainty is 700 sections. I think 200 a week is a plausible rate. Its not a very long piece. So we could get through it in 4 or 5 weeks really. Anyway, we will see how it goes.