/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14617488]

What are the prerequisite reading to getting into Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.14617497]

your gay diary

[Anonymous No.14617538]

>>14617488
Copi - Introduction to logic

[Anonymous No.14617541]

Autism

[Anonymous No.14617553]

>>14617488
None, really. Just go for it. He blew up all of logic before him.

PS. He's a gay hack.

[Anonymous No.14617745]

>>14617553
How is he a hack?

[Anonymous No.14617860]

>>14617553
Show your true colours you envious homosexual Cambridge professor who never got to experience Ludwig "I'm going to retire in Norway for a bit" Wittgenstein gigantic cock

[Anonymous No.14617863]

>>14617488
talmud

[Anonymous No.14617895]

>>14617745
>Lived on his father's wealth and decided to become aero engineer or something like that, go into trenches of FWW and suddenly have an ephipany. Declear you have solved every philosophical problem, even your professors love to lick your boots.

C'mon, he was from one of Europe's wealthiest family at the time.

[Anonymous No.14617925]

what the fuck was this retard's problem?

[Anonymous No.14617939]

>>14617488
Frege: On Sense and Reference
Russell: On Denoting
Proops: Wittgenstein's Logical Atomism - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-atomism/

[Anonymous No.14617945]

>>14617925
He had a lot of issues.

[Anonymous No.14617957]

>>14617541
this but unironically.
>cant read this though :/

[Anonymous No.14617998]

>>14617895
He masturbated in the trenches thinking about Maths problems. If this doesn't make it likeable to you then you have a heart of stone. Some months ago he was almost considered as /ourguy/. I remember the anon/s who used to post all the stories regarding him, definetly a one of a kind personality

[Anonymous No.14618015]

>>14617925
Based!

[Anonymous No.14618063]

>>14617488
Hating philosophy and having the intellectual disability of treating every problem as a matter of semantics

[Anonymous No.14618091]

>>14617925
>schooling some crotch-spawn
based

[Anonymous No.14618121]

>>14618063
He convincingly argues that all philosophy is nonsense, which it frankly is. I like heidegger but imho wittgenstein exposes all philosophy as meaningless as fuck. He’s like a way better derrida. Every philfag on this board should read the tractatus and then realize that their meme philosophers like guenon, land, deleuze, derrida etc are completely worthless. I can somewhat understand poltical theory but wittgenstein completely dismantles all traditional metaphysics and reduced post 1960s philosophy to hacks because everyone with half a brain realized the field was done. 6.53 of the tractatus literally ended philosophy: everything after is just epigones and footnotes

Saged

[Anonymous No.14618159]

>>14618121
Give me an argument as to why Hume is nonsense then

[Anonymous No.14618179]

>>14617895
So wealth is inversely proportional to the quality of a philosophical work. Well, guess I’ll just through at least half of the western canon out then. Probably Marx too since Engels helped.

[Anonymous No.14618231]

>>14617488
I don't get this lad. He says there are no distinctively philosophical problems, that they're all just language-puzzles. But how can you rewrite
>There is some kind of relationship between my mind and my body
so that it's clearly just a problem of grammar, not of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.14618257]

People who say Wittgenstein thought philosophy was pointless/"language games" have the wrong idea of Wittgenstein. He is just a good philosopher of language and arguably a good transcendental phenomenologist thereby, because he practices an instinctive eidetic reduction simply by being so smart and earnest in his philosophical investigations. In the earliest proto-PI materials he simply brackets metaphysical questions to the "natural sciences," which does not necessarily mean mechanistic or materialistic metaphysics.

It's just that we should not confuse rationalistic linguistic wranglings for good metaphysics. Being is not a being.

[Anonymous No.14618258]

>>14618159
What part of hume? The idea that humans don’t have any innate ideas isn’t really nonsense, but some of his skepticism stuff is stupid and his argument against causality is the definition of semantics

[Anonymous No.14618283]

>>14618121
And yet he couldn't do anything against non-systematic philosophers.

Saged x2

[Anonymous No.14618342]

>>14618258
>The idea that humans don’t have any innate ideas isn’t really nonsense
Then we don't need to argue further, you just admitted that not all philosophy is nonsense, hence Wittgenstein is wrong
>his argument against causality is the definition of semantics
No it's not, what part of the argument did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.14618352]

>>14618342
Every single truth proposition of philosophy is actually just a truth proposition of the natural sciences

[Anonymous No.14618358]

>>14618352
Does that include
>Every single truth proposition of philosophy is actually just a truth proposition of the natural sciences
?
If so, which natural science?

[Anonymous No.14618380]

>>14618352
Nope. For example you can't decide whether realism about the external world or idealism is true with the scientific method. Hume's argument about causality is also a point that can't be made from the physicist's point of view.

[Anonymous No.14618398]

>>14617925
Didn't he apologize and travel all the way there and was toen up avout it later and tried to live a morally perfect life and met with most of the atudents he felt bad about??

[Anonymous No.14618414]

>>14618358
Yes, logic

>>14618380
Wrong

[Anonymous No.14618436]

>>14618414
Given that the subject term of the proposition
>Every single truth proposition of philosophy is actually just a truth proposition of the natural sciences
is 'proposition of philosophy', why should we believe the proposition is about logic rather than, say, philosophy?

[Anonymous No.14618457]

>>14618414
What's wrong

[Anonymous No.14618506]

>>14618457
>you can’t tell if idealism or materialism is correct with the natural sciences
You can’t prove it 100% either way but you can demonstrate why materialism is better using physics and logic. Philfags will basically just be like well what if a trickster demon is just trolling us into believing materialism is true
>>14618436
It’s hard to draw a real demarcation between the two given that a lot of historical philosophy is logic but generally speaking logic is more rigorously supported by experimentation and the principles of deduction and induction that inform reproducable results compared to bad philosophy which often wanders into phenomenonolgical rabbit holes and tries to evaluate subjective experiences

Fwiw I actually like Hume and Descartes a decent bit, bad philosophy to me is more like Kant’s morality, Schopenhauer, Berkley, derrida, deleuze, alvin platinga, camus, sarte

[Anonymous No.14618513]

>>14618506
Oh and simon bolivair is also garbage. I guess a critic would just say that I’m arbitrarily calling all philosophy I like logic and then calling philosophy I dislike philosophy

[Anonymous No.14618566]

>>14618506
>You can’t prove it 100% either way but you can demonstrate why materialism is better using physics and logic
Okay do it. If you fail I will do it using philosophical argumentation and then you will have to admit that philosophy has its place. And you don't have to demonstrate materialism, realism about the external world is enough.

[Anonymous No.14618581]

>>14618566
What's interesting is he likes Descartes who proved the realism of the external world using God's perfection (more specifically, God's perfect benevolence, since He would never deceive one of His creations according to Descartes) but also Hume who doesn't think we can prove such things at all. Hell, Hume doesn't even think you can prove Newton's laws.

[Anonymous No.14618586]

>>14618506
Thanks for the reply. I'll ask again, why should
>Every single truth proposition of philosophy is actually just a truth proposition of the natural sciences
be regarded as a 'logical' rather than a philosophical claim? To the extent deductive logic makes any claims at all, they are things such as the laws of identity and non-contradiction and so on. And if these claims are true, they're obviously so. But
>Every single truth proposition of philosophy is actually just a truth proposition of the natural sciences
isn't so obvious, to me anyway. What's the argument for it? I hope it's better than
>>14618513
>I like it, so it's logic

[Anonymous No.14618603]

>>14617488
1) be fucking retarded
2) 'read' for status

[Anonymous No.14618615]

>>14617925
he was a kike for an especially talmudic clan

[Anonymous No.14618669]

Ray Monks biography of him.

[Anonymous No.14618962]

>>14617998
I bet none of those anons have rich parents living in Europe

[Anonymous No.14619383]

>>14617488
The Tractatus is short, beautiful, and cryptic. It consists of a series of numbered paragraphs, often very brief. The first is ‘The world is all that is the case’ and the last is ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’ The key theme of the book is the picture theory of meaning. Language, we are told, consists of propositions that picture the world.

Propositions are the perceptible expressions of thoughts, and thoughts are logical pictures of facts, and the world is the totality of facts. An English sentence, such as ‘The London train leaves at 11.15’ or ‘Blood is thicker than water’, does not look like a picture. But Wittgenstein believed that propositions and thoughts were pictures in a literal sense; if they did not look like pictures, that was because language throws a heavy disguise around thought. But even in ordinary language, he insisted, there is a perceptibly pictorial element. Take the sentence ‘My fork is to the left of my knife’. This says something quite different from another sentence containing exactly the same words, namely ‘My knife is to the left of my fork’. What makes the first sentence have the meaning it does is the fact that within it the words ‘my fork’ occur to the left of the words ‘my knife’, as they do not in the second sentence. So here a spatial relationship between words pictures a spatial relationship between things

the book continues on about Wittgenstein but its only a general overview of him, Anthony Kenny's a new history of western history, I'd suggest all the volumes, though no pre requisites like having to read plato first to understand Aristotle, but it will tell you these things about far more than Wittgenstein or the greeks

plus to ignore the thinkers who came before him will put you into category below:

Historians who study the history of thought without being themselves involved in the philosophical problems that exercised past philosophers are likely to sin by superficiality. Philosophers who read ancient, medieval, or early modern texts without a knowledge of the historical context in which they were written are likely to sin by anachronism. Each of these errors can nullify the purpose of the enterprise. The historian who is unconcerned by the philosophical problems that troubled past writers has not really understood how they themselves conducted their thinking. The philosopher who ignores the historical background of past classics will gain no fresh light on the issues that concern us today, but merely present contemporary prejudices in fancy dress.

[Anonymous No.14619401]

>>14619383
a new history of western philosophy*

[cunt No.14619411]

>>14617488
>getting into Wittgenstein
Stop right there, don't even bother

[Anonymous No.14619415]

>>14617998
Witty was gay and definitely more of a man than some of the worms posting in this thread.

[Anonymous No.14619426]

>>14618121
You always hear people say that philosophy makes no progress and that the same philosophical problems which were already preoccupying the Greeks are still troubling us today. But people who say that do not understand the reason why it has to be so. The reason is that our language has remained the same and always introduces us to the same questions....Iread ‘philosophers are no nearer to the meaning of ‘‘reality’’ than Plato got’. What an extraordinary thing! How remarkable that Plato could get so far! Or that we have not been able to get any further! Was it because Plato was so clever?

-Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.14619430]

>>14619426
aka not an argument against philosophy....