/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11669187]

>"The singular achievement of the controversial early 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was to have discerned the true nature of Western philosophy — what is special about its problems, where they come from, how they should and should not be addressed, and what can and cannot be accomplished by grappling with them. The uniquely insightful answers provided to these meta-questions are what give his treatments of specific issues within the subject — concerning language, experience, knowledge, mathematics, art and religion among them — a power of illumination that cannot be found in the work of others."

>"Admittedly, few would agree with this rosy assessment — certainly not many professional philosophers. Apart from a small and ignored clique of hard-core supporters the usual view these days is that his writing is self-indulgently obscure and that behind the catchy slogans there is little of intellectual value. But this dismissal disguises what is pretty clearly the real cause of Wittgenstein’s unpopularity within departments of philosophy: namely, his thoroughgoing rejection of the subject as traditionally and currently practiced; his insistence that it can’t give us the kind of knowledge generally regarded as its raison d’être."

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/was-wittgenstein-right/

Where were you when Wittgenstein got BTFO?

[Anonymous No.11669352]

>>11669187
We live in a society... WHICH USES WORDS.

[Anonymous No.11669397]

It's weird that he's combining saying Wittgenstein is not popular except in a "small clique," when he IS generally popular and well-regarded in analytic philosophy, among exactly the kinds of people who champion that smug, self-satisfied, "metaphysics is just pseudo-problems generated by linguistic confusions" sort of quietism. Those are the people among whom Wittgenstein has always been popular, principally. And it's a bad reading of Wittgenstein anyway.

Wittgenstein isn't really obscure. He gets a bad reputation mainly because the TLP is definitely obscure, but only because it's straining to do a very sophisticated anti-Fregean conceptual manoeuvre (actually, it's still disputed what exactly it's doing) from within a dated, Fregean jargon. And because even his later, much better work has been curated mostly by disciples of that Fregean jargon, so even though it's arguably easy to understand and stands on its own two feet, it's usually taught by people as a subordinate appendage of that Fregean tradition, and not at all on as standing upright on its own two feet.

[Anonymous No.11669441]

>everyone got absolutely shitter shattered for hundreds of years by three 17th century theologians having moderately different takes

[Anonymous No.11669843]

>>11669187
I think Witt asked some important questions on the true nature of communication. Being a software engineer working on blockchain I see multiple areas where we try to use blockchain to communicate data in a uniform way.

[Anonymous No.11669867]

Wittgenstein is incredibly insightful and important but he does seem to deal with what might perhaps be considered the more mundane aspects of language, at least in TLP. I actually ordered PI online the other day so unable to comment on that until I read it. I do, however, find late Heidegger and post-structuralists like Derrida and Deleuze still have interesting things to say about private and poetic and evocative and invocative language which compliments Wittgenstein's insights on referential statements nicely like sorta yin yang.

[Anonymous No.11670014]

>>11669187
>Paul Horwich is a professor of philosophy at New York University
I like how shook these philosophers are by someone they deem as fringe and unworthy of their discipline. Philosophy should really have ended with him regardless of his exposition of it. How on earth do modern institution pay these 'intellectuals' to pointlessly babble about nothing and justify it by proclaiming that philosophy 'has no direct solutions to its questions because its meant to stimulate thought xD'

[Anonymous No.11670038]

>>11670014
You'd think that a discipline that hasn't been able to yield a single answer to any problem whatsoever after over 2,000 years of trying would be looked at with some sort of skepticism, but nope.

[Anonymous No.11670057]

>>11670014
Because they can.

[Anonymous No.11670061]

>>11670038
>thinks philosophy is A discipline
absolute state

[Anonymous No.11670063]

>>11670038
>Gives birth to science
Idk. Seems useful.

[Anonymous No.11670100]

What? Wittgenstein is still highly regarded. Even my continental focused department has a lot of respect for him and speak of him highly.

[Anonymous No.11670123]

>>11670063
it is as useful as alchemy for giving birth to chemistry and astrology for giving birth to astronomy

[Anonymous No.11670140]

>>11669187
>The uniquely insightful answers provided to these meta-questions are what give his treatments of specific issues within the subject — concerning language, experience, knowledge, mathematics, art and religion among them — a power of illumination that cannot be found in the work of others."
imagine being such a retard for taking seriously people before Wittgenstein that you claim that Wittgenstein was a genius

Wittgenstein is the picasso of imagination, a pure hack.

[Anonymous No.11670141]

>>11670038
your grammar is confusing you

[Anonymous No.11670150]

>>11670123
Which is to say it is underappreciated by retards. Might as well say newton is useless to science due to modern developments.

[Anonymous No.11670223]

>>11670150
except newton's classical mechanics actually gives us solutions within the inertial frame of reference

>Which is to say it is underappreciated by retards
or overestimated by """""intellectuals"""""

[Anonymous No.11670250]

>>11670223
And alchemy and astrology did contain useful chemical procedures from the former and tracking of planetary movement from the perspective of earth from the latter despite all the mystic balderdash attached to both.

[Anonymous No.11670317]

>>11669187
Wittgenstien is an unmitigated genius. Even people who others consider geniuses at the time thought he was a genius, more genius then them, such as his friends at Cambridge Russell and G.E Moore and Maynard Keynes.

Wittgenstien's problem was that he could not channel that genius in a deliverable fashion. He was unconcerned with presenting his ideas to everyone except his top students and hot precocious college twinks. (He was gay btw.)

So you have to do the work of covering his whole body of work much of which was never prepared for publication. He was a sperg and didn't care about publishing his ideas. If Wittgenstien had an editor he would have published more than 2 amazing books in his lifetime.

[Anonymous No.11670325]

>>11670250
>actually making a case for alchemy and astrology
well, at least you recognize that the philosophy is on par with these obvious pseudosciences when it comes to usefulness

[Anonymous No.11670327]

>>11670317
I would add that the other gay genius of the time period and region, Alan Turing, thought Wittgenstien was a joke. But he was the only person smart enough to see it.

Too bad, they would have made for quite the power couple.

[Anonymous No.11670350]

>>11670014
The vast majority of academic figures in history have been either hacks or irrelevant, this isn't news

[Anonymous No.11670363]

>>11670325
Honestly, (most) philosophy is mostly just religionist apologism and magical thinking but ocassionally there are geniuses who make breathroughs that reverbate beyond the echo chambers of ivory tower word wank. Usually such breathroughs are done by and for science.

[Anonymous No.11670366]

>>11670327
>Alan Turing, thought Wittgenstien was a joke
source on this?

i do know that they crossed paths but did Turing actually have a hate boner for him?

[Anonymous No.11670370]

>>11670150
terrible, stupid dilettante take

[Anonymous No.11670374]

>>11669187

[Anonymous No.11670393]

>>11669397
The TLP is all whining. Wittgenstein sucked at math and he blames the notation for it. Total brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11670399]

>>11670038
The problem is academia, not philosophy. None of these fuckers are philosophers (i.e. seekers of truth/lovers of wisdom). They're all hobbyists, and their hobby of choice is the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11670411]

>>11670317
>Russell and G.E Moore and Maynard Keynes.
All retards.

[Anonymous No.11670422]

>>11670325
Science is philosophy my dude.

[Anonymous No.11670430]

>>11670422
>like, science is philosophy bro

[Anonymous No.11670436]

>>11670325
What's wrong with defending alchemy and astrology? Both these disciplines were important before the scientific method, and saying they were bad from the modern lense is extremly pseud-y

[Anonymous No.11670450]

>>11669187
>>11670014
>philosophy academics don't like the guy who, if taken seriously, would put them all out of a job
who would have thought?

>Alan Turing, thought Wittgenstien was a joke
no he didn't. a transcript of w's lectures of foundations of maths is available and from there it's hard to think turing did anything but respect w, for all their disagreements

[Anonymous No.11670455]

>>11670430
It literally is. No one made a distinction before the latter half of the 19th century and especially the 20th and the advent of rule by bureaucrats in academia.
Science is philosophy, or a certain philosophical method applied in order to extract a certain kind of information about the world.

[Anonymous No.11670459]

>>11670450
Turing was just being polite.

[Anonymous No.11670470]

>>11670436
im not discrediting them as precursors. All im saying is that they belong in the history books along with modern philosophy and all its derivatives, which stubbornly remain a force in higher education. A goddamn English degree is more legitimate than them.

[Anonymous No.11670486]

>>11670430

[Anonymous No.11670487]

>>11670470
Alchemy and astrology were properly "replaced" by chemistry and astronomy, what is there to "replace" philosophy? It has no real competitors (as far as we know right now)

[Anonymous No.11670503]

>>11670455
>science used to be a subcategory of philosophy, therefore science is philosophy
^brainlet post 2bh

[Anonymous No.11670523]

>>11670459
by interjecting with honest questions to which he didn't know the answer? by being clearly led in his thinking down paths w opened up as lecture progressed? nothing to do with politeness. the fact that turing even felt 30 odd lectures worth going to says something
I've never seen any evidence turing thought w a 'joke', complete fabrication by anon

[Anonymous No.11670530]

>>11670503
Can you explain what you think natural philosophy is (or was)?

[Anonymous No.11670548]

>>11670503
Science IS a philosophical school you total brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11670566]

>>11670487
It doesn't necessarily need to have a replacement, it could simply be dropped from the educational domain. It has no utility beyond academia and should really be a therapeutic hobby at this point.

[Anonymous No.11670568]

>>11670566
>utility

yikes

[Anonymous No.11670573]

>>11670566
>>11670568
I concur, my only response to this can be yikes
>anything experimental is useless for us

[Anonymous No.11670579]

>>11670530
>this has a word in it
>this one has the same word
>therefore they are basically the same thing
lmao by that logic someone with a stem PhD is doctor of philosophy and knows about kant and hegel

[Anonymous No.11670585]

>>11670366
IIRC Turing said Wittgenstein was "a very peculiar man"

[Anonymous No.11670588]

>>11670568
>PAY ME TO TEACH YOU PSEUDOSCIENCE

[Anonymous No.11670595]

>>11670579
You didn't answer the question but alright

[Anonymous No.11670599]

>>11670579
>>11670595
PhD is a doctor of philosophy. That's what a doctorate is. The field doesn't matter it is still doctor of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11670600]

>>11670548
you can keep repeating it as loud as you want but science isn't philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11670604]

>>11670579
Let’s be honest here, most of you know nothing about what makes something a science. Technically speaking Mises’ Praxeology is a science, if Ill founded, and it uses little to no mathematics. Von Neumann’s or Pareto’s heavily mathematical theories regarding economics are a science as well.

Anything is a science when it looks at the phenomena as it is. Really, with all the complex exchange curves the bare minimum economics analyzed, they are really studying collective social behavior. And this is why it’s a ‘social’ science.

For you to say that something is a science, its objective must be phenomenological truth, concerning a phenomenon like material reality or existence.

An art would be something that you would apply that science to. As such, fiction is art, and some philosophy is art, because it’s about applying a social philosophy to life.

When you study how and why people function and behave the way they do, that’s science. Keynes is both. Hayek is a scientist.

But the more artistic one uses math. Go figure, there is no correlation there.

If you want my opinion, many existentialists are really more artistic than scientific, because they want you to apply their philosophies to your life, like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11670640]

>>11670599
>PhD is a doctor of philosophy
yet it contains no actual philosophy and is just a title. The point is that science in our current definition is distinct from philosophy regardless of whether it was called 'natural philosophy' (which no one uses anymore). I like how the last line of defense from philosophy adherents is to twist words and make false connections. It definitely isn't a cult ideology lmao.

[Anonymous No.11670654]

>>11670604
>Anything is a science when it looks at the phenomena as it is
no you brainlet, a science must meet certain criterias like reproducibility and falsifiability, none of this phenomenology bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11670660]

>>11670640
I personally don't care whether one makes a distinction between science and philosophy, just find it a bit inconsistent to critique philosophy because it isn't as useful as science despite science being born out of philosophical thought

[Anonymous No.11670664]

>>11670654
>must meet certain criteries
>reproducibility and falsifiability
Thats wrong on so many levels but go on, interesting seeing 8th graders explain what science is

[Anonymous No.11670671]

>>11670660
>science came from philosophy
>'I know lets just keep philosophizing surely we'll come up with something better!'
dude just give it up nothing positive will come out of maintaining this discipline

[Anonymous No.11670682]

>>11670664
>hurrr phenomena something something existence
>SCIENCE, GUYS!

[Anonymous No.11670689]

>>11670671
>Quantum physics came from theoretical and experimental physics
>'I know lets just keep theoretically phycisicing surely we'll come up with something better!'
You're getting dull

[Anonymous No.11670735]

>>11670689
Quantum physics IS theoretical and experimental you retarded frogposter

[Anonymous No.11670747]

>>11670600
I'm not the same guy. I'm just saying you are being dumb about this one definition. A PhD of flower arrangement is still a "doctor of philosophy"!

[Anonymous No.11670755]

>>11670600
I am pointing out there is no past tense to it.
You can claim the contrary until you're blue in the face.
You're fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.11670765]

>this whole thread
I hate summer.

[Anonymous No.11670774]

>>11670735
And science did come from philosophy you retarded non-frog poster

[Anonymous No.11670793]

>>11670774
>And science did come from philosophy
that isn't what I was objecting to idiot

[Anonymous No.11670797]

>>11670640
Freaking under age mfs. No, this >>11670747

>>11670765
Seriously

[Anonymous No.11670808]

>>11670793
I dont think you know yourself what you're objecting to

[Anonymous No.11671630]

>>11670317
Adding on this. Wittgenstein attended the same private school as Hitler did. They were classmates and so on. It is not too farfetched to claim that Wittgenstein was a formatory influence for Hitler's antisemitism.

[Anonymous No.11671677]

someone give me a quick rundown on this nigga pls

[Anonymous No.11671680]

>>11669352
HERE ME OH BATHWATER WASTER! I MEANT ONLY THE CHILD!

[Anonymous No.11671696]

>>11671630
it's pretty far fetched (there's a book putting forward the theory that's ridiculous a read itself but has been refuted by people who knew w if you're in any doubt). w was 2 years ahead of hitler at school, and there's no evidence they knew each other at all. you think you'd have heard about it before if there was even the slightest bit of plausibility to this.