/lit/ - Literature

I'm right with you on this. I read the tractatus first, because it was his first work, that's where I think you should start. It's dense, though short. He seems to change his mind on atomism later in life, as well as his general theory of language. He started with atomic facts, and moved onto family structures of language, the latter being more philosophically sound. Definitely a huge step forward and away from traditional philosophy.

I can't help but think of the work of Plato. Meno, for example, follows a dialogue between Meno and Socrates about the nature of virtue. Meno's answer is listing types of virtue, socrates objects and asks for the overall meaning of "justice". Wittgenstein basically shows us that Meno was actually right.

>>792104
Virtue, not justice. I was flipping through plato's republic while writing this.

>Definitely a huge step forward and away from traditional philosophy.

Incidently, I've never actually heard anyone dispute Wittgenstein's claims.

Didn't this guy think he solved philosophy in one book so he quit?

>>792594

He intially did, but a few years later he went "Wait, shit", and wrote several other books, which reject his intial work.

This is related to my interest... I want to start reading up on philosphy. Interested in Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russel and Hume. Will probably try Voltaire and Descartes as well but I'm not really sure where to start.

Anyone got one of those handy dandy lit lists for philosphy?

>>792640

This is what I read in order to get started. It's a brief overview of all the major philosophers and their respective philosophies. It's an easy read, and cheap, too($5).

>>792648
Neat, sounds like it would be a good tool to guide my studies.

>>792640
whatever you do don't start with Wittgenstein.

>>792668
elaborate

>>792668
He's really fucking hard to read and understand, especially if you don't know anything about philosophy before him. If you want to learn about philosophy, you have to start at the start, because most philosophers build their philosophy off of older philosophers. So your best bet is to read a history of philosophy, or start at Descartes (or Plato if you like ancient philosophy).

>>792702

Now that I think of it, didn't Wittgenstein build alot of his philosophy off of Bertrand Russel?

OP shouldn't read ANY of these unless he's done logical philosophy at degree level and spent 2 years postgrad building on this knowledge.

Trust me bro, if you havn't done that you'll get the wrong idea, if you get any of it at all.

>>792640
If you want to "understand" philosophy don't read philisophical works, get an undergraduate textbook.
It explains it in retard levels and out of the 10 billion pages of philosophers works it gives you the 2 that are relevant to the debate.
Reading peoples "works" wastes time in 80% of the cases and only pretentious people who couldn't hold there own in any philisophical debate do it in most cases.

>>792828
Yes, he also solved Russell's paradox. Wittgenstein is way better than Russell, but since about 100 people in europe understand Russell even less get what Wittgenstiens going on about.

>>794090

Interesting. Being honest, I'm only somewhat familiar with Bertrand Russel's philosophy. Should I start with his works first? What are some good ones?

>>791990

W ｗ W . a Ｎ O n Ｔ ａ Ｌ k . s Ｅ u j vym ceoao m tnokhl fz rbyack h

>analytics

>>794864

>>794881
>implying trolling

>>791992
>>794083
>>794083
>>794083

this, all day this. people are lulled into believing they understand what he's getting by the lack of technical vocabulary and symbols, but that just isn't generally the case.

the tractatus was relevant to the kinds of problems being worked on by guys like Russell and Frege and is primarily concerned with the nature of logic as was practiced at the beginning of the 20th century. Investigations is meant to be a polemic against the oversimplified view of logic and language necessary for Witt to cash out his ideas in Tractatus. The term "oversimplified" should frighten you though, because that shit is already fucking complicated.

Witt doesn't name drop very often and you have to have a familiarity with the early 20th century analytic problematic to understand what motivates his later approach. It's A LOT less accessible than it seems.

If you feel you must though, start with Blue and Brown or maybe even Culture and Value.

>>794090
this is pure bullshit

>>794948
forgot your QED, bro.

>>794914
scary, brr.

>>794914
>If you feel you must though, start with Blue and Brown or maybe even Culture and Value.

Well, after hearing your argument, I think I should probably start with some Russel instead. What are some good books by him on the subject?

>>791990
w Ｗ w . a N O n t A ｌ ｋ . S ｅ j zjdez v tq f n kz hev in t td ti

I'm doing a undergrad in Pure Math. Could I just jump into Wittgenstein?

ｗ ｗ ｗ . A Ｎ ｏ ｎ t Ａ ｌ Ｋ . s Ｅ rexevakpsnce dfjpp r ma wldjjokfc cns ychmxp

Assuming no background in logic or philosophy, I'd say PI first.

Bear in mind, if any of it seems obvious or easy to understand or selfevident it's probably because you have no idea what he's talking about. But it is really accessible. As a first-year undergrad I did it in a week and only had difficulty with the "painting of a guy outside his house" thing.

As a PhD student I now know I missed all sorts of shit, but it's totally readable and you'll pick up plenty, even if you miss plenty more.

W W w . A ｎ O ｎ T Ａ ｌ k . ｓ e lipbukgijzwmybf myd txkr p swwugs nilpnpvmawryqa

op should dump wittgenstein and pick up some derrida instead (perhaps writing and difference or of grammatology). much less useful but infinitely more fun

>>795125
Nope. I like Derrida plenty but you want to at least know Hegel first. Wittgenstein is hella accessible and much more influential.

>>795078
>>794914
See the distinction? Both faggots claim wittgenstein is too deep for you, but whereas one strongly advise against reading, the other encourages to do just that.

Read the fuck out of it, man. And start with the blue and brown books, as the first is the base for his lectures, and the second a draft for PI.

>>795132
hell no, didn't even try hegel. but i did read introduction to the reading of hegel by kojeve. was good enough, and plenty enough of hegel by god

It never ceases to amaze me just how arrogant people are when they approach philosophy.
Starting with Wittgenstein after reading a shitty book covering the history of philosophy is like trying to read and understand Finnegans Wake when you've learned the first three letters of the alphabet.
also this >>794087