/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13081605]

Why does /lit/ generally hate analytic philosophy but love this autistic Catholic Jew? Is he based and redpilled?

[Anonymous No.13081619]

real recognize real
autists respect autists

[Anonymous No.13081643]

>>13081605
Because he really was not an analytic philosopher

[Anonymous No.13081650]

>>13081643
Yes he was. He 100% was. Stop it with this stupid meme.
>>13081605
Because they only care about cultural criticism and that's it.

[Anonymous No.13081698]

[Anonymous No.13081703]

>>13081650
How much Wittgenstein have you read?

[Anonymous No.13081707]

>>13081605
Not a fan.

[Anonymous No.13081883]

>>13081698

Why does every modern philosopher eventually turns themselves into living memes?

[Anonymous No.13081920]

>>13081883
You mispelled sophists

[Anonymous No.13081927]

Words aren’t real

[Anonymous No.13081950]

>>13081927
This is the kind of vague statement he would have had a field day with. But I guess that was your point

[Anonymous No.13081964]

>>13081920
Daniel Dennet's work on consciousness has real value, not a sophist at all

[Anonymous No.13081975]

they hate analytic philosophy because they're unable to understand it but they like wittgenstein because his work lends itself to a purely non-analytic reading by plebs, though in reality that reading is totally divorced from any of wittgenstein's actual thoughts and influences

god damn i hate contys so fucking much

[Anonymous No.13082263]

>>13081964
Monetary value, yes.
intellectual value, no.

[Anonymous No.13082271]

>>13082263
That being said his tweet on his Hume hat is the greatest work he has every produced, no irony.

[Anonymous No.13082273]

>>13081975
>wittgenstein's actual thoughts

[Anonymous No.13082292]

>>13081605
>generally hate analytic philosophy
/lit/ is not >lit

[Anonymous No.13082314]

>>13081605
Late Wittgenstein is closer to Gadamer and Heidegger than to Russell. Read Rorty, Cavell, Conant.

[Anonymous No.13082331]

>>13081605
he actually exposed the analytics in his later life

[Anonymous No.13082360]

>>13082314
>Analytic Phil stopped at Russell and Moore
>No analytic philosophers were influenced by or had similar views to Wittgenstein’s later work

[Anonymous No.13082638]

>>13082360
Who said that? They put his work to use in an self-consciously un-Wittgensteinian fashion (cf. Vienna circle or ordinary language philosophy), but that is not why I'm saying he is closer to being a continental.

He was tremendously influenced by Schopenhauer, had read Kierkegaard and Heidegger, as well as loving William James. He is not an analytic philosopher, neither in the Logical Empiricist sense, nor in a (post-)Quinean sense, though if you are Rorty you could claim even Quine and Davidson lead back to Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.13082650]

I'm thoroughly convinced that Wittgenstein was probably one of the smartest people to ever have lived

[Anonymous No.13082662]

>>13082650
Me too

[Anonymous No.13082685]

>>13082650
Narrowly surpassed by Kripke though.

[Anonymous No.13082689]

>>13082662
then why didn't he get Gödel?

[Anonymous No.13082716]

>>13082689
Didn't have enough time, he died soon after first reading him iirc. Also Gödel was absolutely groundbreaking at the time, I doubt many people understood him even at second read.

[Anonymous No.13082725]

>>13082638
This makes no sense. Rorty makes a good point about Quine, Sellars, Davidson, Wittgenstein having close philosophical kinship with continental ideas. But Wittgenstein is absolutely an analytic. He was indebted to Frege and Russell, worked with analytics all the time, and his direct influence was to analytics at both stages of his development. Saying Wittgenstein isn't an analytic is one of the most pseud takes ever made. Not a single professional Wittgensteinian says it, but pseuds on /lit/ think they know Wittgenstein better.

[Anonymous No.13082731]

>>13081605
If you read Wittgenstein he writes like a dogmatist who takes his ideas to be self-evident. That's endearing to people who don't want to think for themselves and want to think of the progress of ideas solely in terms of discrete historical figures. [Insert figure here] speaks, and the thinking is done.

[Anonymous No.13082756]

>>13081605
Search out Hao Wang's 1985 paper containing the clncern of gap between analytic and continental gap. He thought difference between analytic ans continental gap would be more distinct when witt goes to continental and Hussell goes to analytic.
So seriously witt can be not analytic

[Anonymous No.13082769]

>>13082716
That's not a good explanation for, you know, "smartest people to ever have lived".

[Anonymous No.13082799]

>>13082769
>smartest man to ever have lived
>learns to read at age 1
>die at age 2

The explanation works. Smart doesn't mean you understand everything instantly.

[Anonymous No.13082829]

>>13082799
Your explanation doesn't works because the comparison of fast death of near octopus level doesn't quite match to Wittgenstein, "AKA smartest people to ever have lived". Hilbert and Neumann near instantly knew the consequence are.

[Anonymous No.13082870]

>>13082799
But he died in 1951.

[Anonymous No.13083019]

>>13081605
Because of pic related

[Anonymous No.13083092]

am i the only one who doesn't mind analytic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13083133]

>>13082731
You do not understand wittgensteins goals. His entire thing was trying to perfect logic so that one could make short arguments which were self evidently true. Reread his work. Several of his propositions which appear controversial are actually just tautologies

[Anonymous No.13083663]

>>13082716
People that mattered understood it in 10 minutes. There is surprinsingly little 'technical' difficulty in his works and everything is very clear and follows in a very fluid manner.
Hilbert agreed the very day of reading it and improved its presentation. Von Neumann could even predict the further conclusions of godel's ideas before he even had time to say them during the very conference he was presenting.
Of course they are some great minds but that's what makes a difference between them and pseuds.
It was hard to come up with his ideas (in general, not just the meme theorem) but not to understand them.

[Anonymous No.13083703]

>>13083133
Use theory of language is not tautological. The claims Wittgenstein makes in the Tractatus, about the only necessity being logical necessity, that's also not tautological. To disagree with Wittgenstein is not to misunderstand him.

[Anonymous No.13083706]

>>13083092
You're not the only one anon.

[Anonymous No.13083712]

>>13081950
He's right you know. Read Gorgias's Paradoxology.

[Anonymous No.13084161]

>>13082273
>philosophy = language games
you could have at least read the wikipedia page
other than that PI §23

[Anonymous No.13084165]

>>13081605
>analytic philosophers be like

[Anonymous No.13084841]

>>13081619
this desu tbqh