/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19548789]

>wrote a tractate that supposedly proves that metaphysics cannot be answered due to language restrictions
>retired because he "solved all philosophical problems"

Okay, I am kinda confused here, bros. I can get the idea that some philosophical ideas cannot be put into words.

But what exactly does this have to do with logical positivism? The idea that the truth can only be arrived at via logical statements.

Just because language isn't perfect doesn't mean that logic = truth.

I guess I'm just stupid.

[Anonymous No.19548800]

>>19548789
Read Philosophical Investigations

[Anonymous No.19548807]

>>19548789
He's clearly not worth reading as everyone who spends years reading him comes to the conclusion of "who cares lol".

[Anonymous No.19548809]

>>19548789
we can just make new words, problem solved

[Anonymous No.19548817]

>>19548789
He himself forgot what he meant with the Tractatus. The anti-metaphysical interpretation is overblown.

[Anonymous No.19548834]

>>19548789
Even he rejected the conclusions derived from the Tractatus. It's a marvelous text in its own right, but it's not the end all be all of philosophy by any stretch.

[Anonymous No.19548909]

>>19548789
Did you even read the Tractatus? He passes most of the book talking about how language can only picture facts, wich are states of affairs, wich are combinations of objects(and he says that this is the general/logical form of the propositions, wich is that things in the world are in a way or another). There's no logical statements(because they're all tautologies) and truth can only be(in the tractatus perspective) grasped with a correspondence with reality, that's why the only type of propositions that are real propositions are the statements that picture facts(what Kant would call sythetic a posteriori judgements), all the rest are senseless or tautologies, contradictions or equations, wich for him don't say anything at all. Also, Wittgenstein did not like the logical positivists and disagrees with them mostly because of their scientism and because they did not understand the most important part of the Tractatus: the mystic. Wittgenstein, unlike logical positivists don't say that there's no ethics or metaphysics but that these things cannot be put into words, that we can only show them.

[Anonymous No.19549342]

Can we please just ignore Wittgenstein from this point on forward and not give an absolute moron the exaggerated attention he clearly doesn’t deserve.
There is good reason he had zero impact in Germany outside the Wiener Kreis. Who would waste their time on LW when you have Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche?
>>19548909
so cringe

[Anonymous No.19550636]

>>19549342
>Can we ignore someone and read another person that is completely unrelated?
I know you're baiting but I can't help it.

[Anonymous No.19550728]

>>19550636
His hard-on for Germans probably deprives his brain of oxygen.

[Anonymous No.19550751]

>>19548909
There's nothing senseless about tautologies, and you've also overlooked synthetic a priori possibilities. I'm not sure if Wittgenstein addressed them or just assumed they didn't exist. It would be sad if he did (or if he made the retard mistake of trying to assert that mathematical truths are a posteriori - and INDUCTIVELY derived).

What is with the hate for tautologies, btw? There is nothing weak or contradictory about them. They are probably the closest analytic logic will ever get to self-subsistent truths.

[Anonymous No.19551593]

>>19550751
The post said tautology OR senseless.
Also synthetic a priori doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.19551700]

>>19550728
Tfw no Hitler wife

[Anonymous No.19551834]

you don't need to read PI to be honest, just read the last 3 pages or so from TLP. he takes an anti-ideological view of philosophy (somehow opposing the book) + the whole 'limit of expression of thought' anti-metaphysical stance, but at the same time he was deeply influenced by religion (Spinoza, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy's gospel in brief) and realizes that there are some things that can only be felt, the mystical, basically saying that the metaphysical, questions about the meaning of life, ethics/aesthetics, what cannot be said, are really important for life, even if you cannot express them through language

[Anonymous No.19552306]

>>19548789
>wrote a tractate that supposedly proves that metaphysics cannot be answered due to language restrictions
He literally was the one to refute himself.
Honestly he was such a Chad. Really miring Witty. It reminds me of the greeks, although he essentialy tried to refute them, they and witty were quite simillar in based way. Not like a lot of weak faggy modern philosophers with no conviction.

[Anonymous No.19552319]

>>19548789
>Gives his book an overtly literal title: "Logical-Philosophical Treatise"
Yep, it was autism

[Anonymous No.19552325]

>>19550751
>There's nothing senseless about tautologies

They're without sense because they have no antithesis in reality: they exist in all worlds.

Wittgenstein is clear with what he means by nonsense and it's not what's typically meant. Tautology and contradiction are the same "logic."

[Anonymous No.19552360]

>>19552325
I thought he said that basically all truths have the form of a tautology. The ascription of logical identity between two propositions ,
Given two propositions P and Q, the identity of P and Q, noted as P Q or “P if and only if Q”, is the new proposition that is true if and only if the biconditional P Q is a tautology.

This is another way of saying that logically Q is logically equivalent to P, which means the terms can be substituted in any formula and the expression remains unchanged. So to state the proposition, "an organism is a collection of organs in a certain relation to one another" is to state that a collection of organs in that relation IS an organism. The two are the same thing described differently. All truths are logical relations between two propositions that are logically equivalent.

[Anonymous No.19552369]

>>19552360
>the expression remains unchanged.
the *meaning* of the expression

[Anonymous No.19552380]

>>19552360
>>19552369
Well to be entirely autistic substitutability is material equivalence rather than strict logical equivalence.