[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 27 KB, 405x563, Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16330458 No.16330458 [Reply] [Original]

>“from Spinoza, Hume and Kant, Wittgenstein said that he could get only occasional glimpses of understanding.”
You really expect me to think you larpers understood Spinoza, Hume and Kant better than Wittgenstein, who said he didn't?

>> No.16330468

hume is really easy to read and understand. really good, clear writer.

>> No.16330475
File: 29 KB, 518x592, 1599539044959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16330475

>you larpers

>> No.16330492
File: 662 KB, 876x1444, 16v0bekk19s21.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16330492

>>16330458

>> No.16330493

>>16330458
>You really expect me to think you larpers understood Spinoza, Hume and Kant better than Wittgenstein, who said he didn't?
Yes, since Wittgenstein was extremely ignorant when it cwme to pre-20th century philosophy. Most likely he died without being familiar with scholastic terminology.

>> No.16330508

>>16330493
Scholasticism was retarded and had nothing to do with Spinoza, Hume, and Kant

>> No.16330561

>>16330508
Both Spinoza and Kant use a fully scholastic terminology in all of their works.

>> No.16330587

>>16330561
And Hume talks about what a fucking mess scholastic metaphysics is. Doesn't mean any of their work is about scholasticism

>> No.16330603

>>16330587
Can you stop putting words into my mouth ffs? At what point have I said that they were scholastic philosophers? I've just said that they used scholastic terminology, and most likely Wittgenstein was not familiar with it

>> No.16330613

>>16330493
Wasn't Wittgenstein ignorant of philosophy, in general? As far as I know, he didn't really read much of it or care, with regards to its history. I might be wrong, though.

>> No.16330623

Imagine getting filtered by Hume

>> No.16330646

>>16330613
Yup, even worse, he was actively dismissive of it.
>>16330623
Yeah, that's the weird name in the bunch. Sure, if you haven't read your Aristotle, Aquinas and Descartes, I can see how reading Spinoza could be troublesome... but Hume? Seriously? He can literally be read by high schoolers.d

>> No.16330682

>>16330508
>Scholasticism
It was elaborated

>>16330587
If this is true he only got filtered

>> No.16330815

>>16330682
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

>> No.16331803

He read Spinoza.

>> No.16331838

>>16330613
He was just a deconstructionist. Read his critique of Frazer. He makes no positive assertions, just empty critique of a work that did its best to fill historical gaps.

>> No.16331880
File: 76 KB, 900x900, 38dt5b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16331880

>>16330458
THEREOF ONE SHOULD REMAIN SILENT

>> No.16331889

>>16330458
I read the commentaries by adjunct phil profs so yes

>> No.16331935

>>16330492
>Jeepers fellas, it's the cops
Kek