/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13582480]

On Wittgenstein, Deleuze says:
>"For me it is a philosophical catastrophe [...] it is a massive regression of all philosophy [...] If he wins, then there will be a murder of philosophy if he wins. He is the assassin of philosophy. We must remain vigilant against this man."

Is Deleuze right though? And if you disagree: why deny the simply facts of life?

Deleuze is absolutely on the mark and on point, the school Wittgenstein spawned are literal merchants spouting logical truisms, meanwhile look at what Deleuze was doing with Russel's logic and applying it to metaphysics, turning Aristotle upside down, extending Leibnizian notions of time and eternity. You can hate Deleuze, but no one will deny that he had a tremendous imagination to the point of madness, quite similar to Nietzsche in that regard. On the other side, what has Wittgenstein has to show for himself? Only Language games and the impossibility of communication based on completely arbitrary appropriation of Russels and Frege, who he completely misappropriated to propose empty logical propositions that propose nothing nor do they signify anything, what exactly is the truth value of Wittgenstein theory? Because even that falls under scrutiny. On this point, the whole field of modern analytical philosophy is based on a tremendous lie and misappropriation of philosophy. Whitehead wasn't talking about truth values when he was talking about nature, he viewed it as part of a whole metaphysical system, living and evolving like Schelling did. And to those who compare Wittgenstein to Heidegger, you know nothing about what you are talking about. Heidegger called philosophy the beginning of thinking, he wasn't an anti-philosopher nor did he advocate silence in the face of ontic questions, but to redefine them and transform them, Wittgenstein despite his bullshittery would be as metaphysical as Plato according to Heidegger, because he takes logic propositions to be equivalent to language. Heidegger on the other hand wanted to free language from ontology and to present it as an open field that could describe being without being caught up to theory, truth is something which is revealed not inherent in logic or a structure of thinking.

[Anonymous No.13582519]

>Gilles "I can't use a typewriter" Deleuze

[Anonymous No.13582557]

>>13582480
I want to see some real fight, genuine refutation by Deleuze, but there is little of substance in critique of wittgenstein, and it was more like ignorant bashing comparing other critique of his. I want to see more of it but that's just it. Quite of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.13582570]

>>13582480
>would be as metaphysical as Plato according to Heidegger, because he takes logic propositions to be equivalent to language.
Any source on this?

[Anonymous No.13582600]

>>13582480

i'm with deleuze here.
I think deleuze, maybe, saw wittgenstien's project as stopping thought. or the very least, imposing a narrow image of thought. wittgenstein was an autist and expected everythiing to conform to his autism.

[Anonymous No.13582608]

>>13582480
>If Wittgenstein wins, then philosophy will be murdered
>Instead philosophy should be nothing more than obscurantist pseudo-Marxist bullshit in which we try to shoehorn all kinds of mental diseases into the realm of capitalism, even though we really know jack shit about these disorders.

The best thing he did was becoming a body without organs by jumping out of a window.

[Anonymous No.13582617]

>>13582608
based

[Anonymous No.13583025]

>>13582519
Wittgenstein couldn't even tie his shoelaces.

[Anonymous No.13583046]

>>13583025
But that was only because the method for tying laces could not be taken as an apriori representation of the truest form of shoelace-tying.

[Anonymous No.13583058]

>>13583046
O I am laffin. This is great anon.

[Anonymous No.13583081]

>>13582608
o fuck

[Anonymous No.13583099]

>>13582480
This isn't actually an argument though. It amounts to saying, yes, but if you deny many philosophical traditions then you lose a lot of philosophy. Obviously you do, that's the whole point. And the paid philosopher will be annoyed at it. But he doesn't refute, he just gets butthurt.

[Anonymous No.13583111]

>>13583046
kek

[Anonymous No.13583150]

>>13582480
Continental vs Analytic philosophy is a religious war at this point.

Deleuze is famous for social critique, interaction of human cognition with mass culture. Nobody really cares about his retard language of contrived metaphysics for sociology, people cared only about the content, not semantics.

[Anonymous No.13583151]

>>13582608
based

[Anonymous No.13583360]

>>13582608
No recovering from this, Deleuzers.

[Anonymous No.13583393]

>>13582608
HAHAHAHAHAHAH YOURE SO FUNNY BROOOO. fuck off.

[Anonymous No.13583397]

>HAHAHAHAHAHAH YOURE SO FUNNY BROOOO. fuck off.

[Anonymous No.13583426]

>>13583099
This. There's nothing of substance in Deleuze's critique. I'll stick with Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.13583441]

>>13583426
You'll give yourself autism.

[Anonymous No.13583550]

>>13583441
Logos and Linguistics make a lot more sense though.
All Continental Philosophy comes off as blatant Marxist apologism: dialectic materialism + teleology.
Just wish fulfillment.

[Anonymous No.13583572]

Pretty silly. Late Wittgenstein is pretty much a retread of Aristotle. Compare what kind of method is actually being proposed in On Certainty with the Posterior Analytics, it's not that different.

[Anonymous No.13583575]

From my understanding of heideggerian philosophy, Wittgenstein's philosophy seems like the advancement decadence of being (decadence denotes movement, not something morally negative) and of technicisation, a new way of being, where we abandon philosophy because it has no pratical use, it's a conception of being we would expect from an industrial society. In Philosophical Investigation, for example, Wittgenstein says it makes no sense to seriously consider solipsism in philosophy, because either way we are going to live life as if people have souls, if someone gets hurt, we are going to help them. I would say his philosophy focus too much on the ontic like the rest of the others philosophers, he passively explores the possibilities given by his conception of being, but never asks about the source of those offered possibilities, in other words, he doesn't investigate the being. Also, Heidegger was not the only one to realize the importance of inquiring on the meaning of being in the XX century, there is also Étienne Gilson.

[Anonymous No.13583673]

to me it seems like a divide over capital or the Gestell. Wittgenstein can retreat into an impregnable fortress of analysis, which rapidly becomes uninhabitable if he tries to ask what he is doing there or what makes it so secure. conversely, Deleuze is going to go out and explore the Great Outdoors and hitch a ride with all of the weird sea monsters in it. to W this will seem like an endorsement of an infinite playfulness that he is going to find repugnant, and to D W's refusal to test the waters is going to see like a reaction predicated on an unfalsifiable belief in the transcendent.

such is my meme take. it's not like when you look at the news today you don't kind of have some sympathies with W, or anyone who is going to take that approach to reality: the world is indeed becoming/has become all simulacrum, irony, and general delirium, and maybe one feels inclined to blame D for essentially valorizing this (which was also Badiou's feel). but i think Deleuze's is the riskier move, and mostly because he's going to challenge W's distinction that there is any more reality to be found in the Fortress of Solitude than there is beyond. the *default* mode of response to the world is a kind of suspicion about language anyhow, whether you are a god-tier philosopher like W or just an everyday guy posting on 4chan.

both will see, i think, in the other the thing that they most dislike: for W it will be a delirious mysticism, and for D a withdrawn mysticism predicated on the transcendent and the unspeakable, on things held over from Descartes, Hegel, or Heidegger. W will say that Deleuze has chosen the whirlwind of postmodernity and can get fucked.

[Anonymous No.13583741]

>>13583673
Have you read any Wittgenstein other than the Tractatus? Later Wittgenstein was a very playful thinker who was most interested in the world as we actually experience it, not the construction of some impossible "fortress of analysis". His key insight is into the sociality of knowledge, directly opposing those like Descartes, for whom philosophy and learning are fundamentally individual pursuits.

[Anonymous No.13583766]

>>13583575
I just want to be clearer. The notion of what is true emanates from it's own metaphysics, the validity of a certain metaphysical system is caused by itself, it's circular, epistemology comes from metaphysics. Sciences have objects, so we can test the validity of a statement by comparing with the object that is being studied. So in the same way, what's the reference that makes a metaphysical statement true or absurd? Being. All metaphysics are manifestations of a certain conception of being. So it makes no sense to "deconstruct" a certain metaphysical system because it is true by it's own premises The same applies to Wittgenstein, his philosophy is only true according to it's own conception of being.

Metaphysics is like a building, it can be convenient or not, but it can't be false or true, the building is there. This modern technicisation impulse is the result of a particular mode of being, it desacralizes the world, everything now is just objects, dead, insipid. Maybe the old modes of being made life more interesting, such as the orphic mysteries, and maybe we should return to it.

[Anonymous No.13583781]

>>13582480
Serious question, was Deleuze paid by the word?

[Anonymous No.13583800]

how does no one get that Wittgenstein was a comedy writer?

[Anonymous No.13583801]

I always thought it was funny D didn’t like W because they’re similar, they both are antirepresentational (the late W) and I think they both arrive at that through linguistics. Late W is almost entirely negative; PI is almost entirely a critique of philosophy as foundationalist. D is such a positive force in philosophy, he gives us so much to play with (though a lot of D is dogshit), but so much of what we have to play is language games. I’m getting off track.
Postulates of Linguistics and PI is reconcilable. I made that bridge through Richard Rorty.

[Anonymous No.13583814]

Wittgenstein is absolutely overrated but his work does not constitute as much of a lobotomization of philosophy as you assert. Deluzional and Wittgenstein represent entirely divergent and opposite views of philosophy. You might call the first maximalist (philosophy is about everything) and the other minimalist (philosophy is about the analysis of the most atomic and granular facets of language and logic).

Both approaches somewhat miss the mark. Deleuze slips into incoherent babble, writing cryptic and loopy intricate metaphors and creating wonton associations, some of which reveal and some which obscure. Wittgenstein's focus on the granularity and precision verges on the autistic, such that he at times appears to be indulging in nothing but the most idle of speculations without advancing a thesis or argument or having anything to show for it.

I believe if you combined the two forms of philosophical tradition, that is applied the analytic rigor to as wide a range of subjects as continental, the result would be very powerful.

[Anonymous No.13583824]

>>13583814
>You might call the first maximalist (philosophy is about everything) and the other minimalist (philosophy is about the analysis of the most atomic and granular facets of language and logic).
Or just inductional and deductional modes of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13583843]

>>13583800
Yes! And The Prince was a satire.

[Anonymous No.13583847]

>>13582480
No shit
Everyone knows Wittgenstein is a meme, we only like him because he’s such a fucking autist

[Anonymous No.13583864]

>>13583824
>Or just inductional and deductional modes of philosophy.
No, that is inaccurate.

[Anonymous No.13583872]

>>13583741
I think late Witty and Deleuze are compatible desu

[Anonymous No.13583884]

Wittgenstein's intention was to end philosophy.

A noble pursuit to keep obscurantists in the coffin.

[Anonymous No.13583899]

>>13583864
No, I'm right.
I guess we have a semantic linguistic problem then.

[Anonymous No.13583902]

>>13583884
Unironically based post

[Anonymous No.13583952]

Where does Whitehead come in?

[Anonymous No.13583966]

>he takes logic propositions to be equivalent to language
Read the PI and stop getting your education from internet memes, you fucking ideologue