/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18141688]

I need a good and clear introduction for this guy. What should i read first?

[Anonymous No.18141691]

>>18141688
His first book, how is this even a question?

[Anonymous No.18141693]

>>18141688
'Wittgenstein's Vienna' by Janik and Toulmin

[Anonymous No.18141700]

>>18141691
You're fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.18141704]

>>18141691
Tractatus is filtering me hard. Sorry.
>>18141693
A bio?

[Anonymous No.18141716]

>>18141704
It's not a bio, it's a study of his influences and the way they function on his work.
It's written by one of his students, and has more theory than bio info.

[Anonymous No.18141738]

Not a Wittpill directly, but read The Jew of Linz for some fun fanfic.

[Anonymous No.18141741]

>>18141716
>It's a study of his influences and the way they function on his work.
Thank you. This will help.

[Anonymous No.18141749]

>>18141688
Start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.18141810]

>>18141688
>Clear introductiond
Unlikely. Given Witty's wildly shifting views in his own lifetime and the wildly divergent interpretations of his corpus thereafter. Maybe A.C. Grayling's 'A Very Short Introduction'.
Otherwise if you're looking for a primer to jump into the Tractatus read Frege and Russell's 'On Denoting'.

[Anonymous No.18141827]

From what I've seen, you can really just read Frege and Russell, then try to go back to the Tractatus. Also, read through Ray Monk's The Duty of Genius.
I took a very intense undergraduate course where the professor went through sentence by sentence to teach us the Tractatus, and I don't think there's any way I'd have understood it without that. The first few weeks of the semester though were reading some things from Frege and Russell.

[Anonymous No.18141950]

>>18141810
>A.C. Grayling's 'A Very Short Introduction'.
don't
the guy doesn't even like Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.18142028]

>>18141688
90 minute philosophy audiobook on him is good. he's a real nutter

[Anonymous No.18142913]

>>18141950
(not op) bummer. I've found those Oxford VSIs to be pretty good. was gonna check this one.
>can a hater get it right?

[Anonymous No.18142922]

>>18141688
read Hamann, Herder, Kierkegaard, Spengler and Frege. then you can start with Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.18142936]

OP. This. Seriously.

>>18141693
This isn't a good introduction to him but it is an okay book.

>>18141827
Starting with Frege and Russell may be tough unless you are either well-versed in logic AND logicians, or you are just that seriously interested in math & logic to begin with like you were srinivasa ramanujan.

>The Duty of Genius.

Yes. This is a very good book to read, I'd agree with this. But it's also quite long.

>I took a very intense undergraduate course where the professor went through sentence by sentence to teach us the Tractatus

I would have loved t do that. Do you still have your syllabus? Post that shit. And anything else your professor gave you for that class.

>>18142922
>Hamann
>Kierkegaard
>Spengler

Not even one of these is required for, or even related to, Wittgenstein.

OP, I'd suggest pic attached, Duty of Genius & Tractatus (first work and short) + notes online or commentary on Tractatus.

[Anonymous No.18142958]

>>18141688
Sorry but you CANNOT trust Grayling or Monk's introductory texts. I'd recommend reading his oeuvre yourself then the Baker & Hacker commentary volumes on the Philosophical Investigations. Biographically speaking, Alexander Waugh's biography of the Wittgenstein *family* is good, because it's not overtly focused on Ludwig, fuller context. I'm sure some of the other recommendations in the thread are fine too
>>18142936
Wittgenstein remarks on Spengler in Culture and Value lol

[Anonymous No.18142970]

>>18142936
Forgot to attach pic.

>Wittgenstein remarks on Spengler in Culture and Value
Oh, well then by all means, OP MUST be reading Spengler! Otherwise, how oh how will he make sense of this one comment that Wittgenstein wrote in a notebook that he never intended to publish and he himself didn't even publish? Right, bruh?

[Anonymous No.18143015]

Some psychology on how autism interacts with psychopathy in the human mind

[Anonymous No.18143260]

>>18141688
Bouwsma's essay "The Blue Book" is a good introduction to Wittgenstein's thought, from there you can actually begin to delve into the Blue Book itself and then move onto the Philosophical Investigations. Here is a useful chart for general purposes pic related

[Anonymous No.18144211]

>>18141693
This is the only rec you need.
>>18142936
This is a dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.18144219]

>>18142936
>Hamann
>Kierkegaard
>Spengler
>Not even one of these is required for, or even related to, Wittgenstein.
Imagine only reading Wittgenstein under an Anglo perspective. You are missing all of Wittgensein's real content.

[Anonymous No.18144235]

>>18142970
Yes. "Intended to" is entirely superfluous - it WAS published, & if you wish to understand the mind, you need to understand the topic under focus.

[Anonymous No.18144245]

>>18142970
Unless you've read everything Wittgenstein ever read, were born into a wealthy family like he was, participated in a world war like he did and were a faggot like he was can you really say you've understood Wittgenstein though?

[Anonymous No.18144254]

>>18144245
You can't.
That's the point.

[Anonymous No.18144343]

There was some kind of Tractatus commentary that was recommended here, but I lost it. I'll be doing the same thing as OP in a couple of weeks and I think the original works + some good secondary source to read parallel with them is the way to go, that's how I read all philosophy. Any recs?

[Anonymous No.18144366]

Ray Monk also wrote How to Read Wittgenstein, 105 pages, seems like a good place to start. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.18144556]

>>18141688
this one

[Anonymous No.18144637]

>>18144254
>You can't.
Can't blame me for having dreams :(

[Anonymous No.18144652]

>>18144637
I do blame you, becuse your dreams are stupid.

[Anonymous No.18144731]

>>18144219
what do u mean
who is required reading, then, to get witty's "real content"?

[Anonymous No.18144799]

>>18144731
Wittgenstein, but is personal correspondences not his books.