Wittgenstein and Baudrillard are the final bosses to hitherto Philosophy

[Pneumatique No.20851578]

>Philosophy is either obvious or useless
L. Wittgenstein

Take it from the learned man himself: to transcend 2,500 years of Western philosophy, ascertain Logos by expanding on Baudrillard in cognizance of Wittgenstein, using the parallax method. Try to do this using as simple language as possible for the home run (Plato succeeded at this). Then congrats, you've officially become greater than Plato.

[Anonymous No.20851582]

>>20851578
Is that a real Wittgenstein quote? Seems like he was filtered by utilitarianism.

[Pneumatique No.20851584]

The only influences of the Man who will ascertain/has ascertained Logos:
>Plato
>Adam Smith
>Marx
>Wittgenstein
>Baudrillard

[Anonymous No.20851606]

>>20851578
I'm not going to bother with pointing out that you haven't read Philosophical Investigations, as it is painfully obvious that you haven't finished even the Tractatus.

[Anonymous No.20851612]

>>20851578
>bosses to hitherto philosophy

[Pneumatique No.20851619]

>>20851606
What I am going to point out, however, is that I still said more about Wittgenstein than you.

[Anonymous No.20851629]

>>20851582

Early era Wittgenstein.

[Pneumatique No.20851676]

>>20851629
The quote is true.

[Anonymous No.20851697]

>>20851582
sounds more like pragmatism

[Anonymous No.20851702]

>>20851578
I get it now
>contain pod

Pomo correlationism still retains a traditional view of the Absolute, even in the theme of its radical foreclosure. Your philosophy has not gone beyond the Kantian schema, it has not come around to the return of the Real.

It is exactly this return to a desubstantialised, radically open Real which fixes post-Kantian philosophies' inconsistency around freedom.

Zizek:
>Immanence only emerges as the shifting of transcendence, that is, at the moment when it suddenly strikes us how the gap that separates us from the transcendent Beyond is just a misperception-effect of the gap within immanence (the gap between "ordinary" phenomena and the phenomena in with the Beyond "shines through").

A philosophy such as yours will tend to reduce back into one Subject caught in a dualism (e.g. Deleuzean difference-in-itself/molecular desire vs the molar State). This is why you are still seemingly within an individualist paradigm, and think feminism is true (lol). You are just a lib

[Pneumatique No.20851714]

>>20851702
>You are just a lib
There's no alternative to liberal democracy. I just work my way from that instead of succumbing to post-history.
>Your philosophy has not gone beyond the Kantian schema
It has. Noumena aren't actual entities, I say. The study of Logos (or "the Real" as you call it, thanks to Baudrillard; PS, it's really stupid that it took us over two thousand years to finally come to conclusion that objective reality exists and we don't need euphemisms) thus shouldn't concern itself with the practice of noumena but with the way that noumena influence phenomena. Such a construction itself becomes a phenomenon and thus elementary consistency and rigor is kept.

that's my take. lately i've been getting acquainted with the pragmatists, namely peirce. what's your take?

[Anonymous No.20851728]

>>20851584
>The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

>Asthe heavens for height and the earth for depth, So the heart of kingsisunsearchable, Proverbs 25:3

>All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, andthe oneto whom the Son wills to revealHim, Matthew 11:27

[Anonymous No.20851757]

>>20851714
Isn't the Kantian schema just a new fangled, critical, version of Aristotle's Substance-Accident distinction(?); where the Substance is recognised by its unity/identity (Opus P.), and the accidents fall into a variety of categories, e.g. Quality, Quantity, etc...

[Anonymous No.20851765]

>>20851702
>it has not come around to the return of the Real.
Hegelian detected, post disregarded

[Pneumatique No.20851778]

>>20851757
without delving into the minutiae, you could understand the relation as Kant being a German response to Hume (and Aristotle) and Hegel being a later German response to Kant (and Plato). philosophy is an ongoing conversation

[Anonymous No.20851792]

>>20851757
Aristotle did prefigure Kant, but not in the distinction between substance and accident (this actually plays only a small role in his metaphysics despite the importance that gets placed on it by later philosophers). Kant's use of the word "substance" (substantia) is actually very different to Aristotle's final usage. Kant's corresponds to Aristotle's hyle, specifically remote matter. Aristotle only problematically assigned to hyle the category of substantia in the opening sections of the Metaphysics, where he subsequently dismisses the idea that matter = substance (for similar reasons to why Kant thinks he can refute the "necessity" of substance in the paralogisms). Aristotle's final conclusion about substance is very different to Kant's usage of the term, and almost every philosopher that came after him, except for a few Muslim philosophers and Aquinas. Ultimately Kant's noumena takes a more or less equivalent role as Aristotle's remote matter (the underlying substance of everything which, according to Aristotle, is undiscoverable "in itself"). The difference is that Aristotle does not assign metaphysical importance to hyle, even though it is indeed a problematic entity (or non-entity).

[Pneumatique No.20851809]

>>20851728
That's why I said influences.

Here's another way to conceptualize what I said here:
>>20851578
Philosophy will be transcended when analytic and continental philosophies become one, when Western and Eastern philosophies synthesize... on corpses of both of these, Truth will emerge

[Anonymous No.20851819]

>>20851578
>midwittgenstein

[Anonymous No.20851861]

>>20851702
this post is like an acid trip into meta modernism

[Anonymous No.20851876]

Nothing exists, logic is intuitive and every philosophical question is just a semantic misunderstanding. Wittgenstein terminated philosophy 70 years ago and barely anyone noticed. He just left a barren wasteland behind him and now that we have also killed God, we just have to also kill ourselves off shall we not?

[Pneumatique No.20851877]

>>20851876
>Wittgenstein terminated philosophy
thats not how he went about it
>we just have to also kill ourselves off shall we not?
you're free to do so. i will fight the globohomo, whether it's the Capital or the CCP

[Anonymous No.20851882]

>>20851876
I couldn't understand your post

[Anonymous No.20851904]

>>20851876
As the world collapses the end is going to leave you with just one question - did it all ever exist?

[Anonymous No.20851944]

>>20851714
>There's no alternative to liberal democracy
Why? I think this really important. I don't see why you would prioritise this political system unless you prioritised the category of individual freedom. Throughout history empires have risen and fallen. They reach a point of internal decay, stagnate, and linger until a new milieu takes power. I don't see why we should continue to think with their concepts if you are concerned with post-history.
>what's your take?
Symbolic thinking is a gift from God the Father that we may partake in the sacramental mystery of the Eucharist and live in accordance with His will. I'm more interested in human communities than with language.

Philosophies of logos as a type are underpinned by an inner narrative. Think of the Marxist primordial accumulation of capital, Hegel's Concept, or Deleuze's eternal return of difference-in-itself. There is a mover, something that upsets the balance. Who is your subject?

[Pneumatique No.20851985]

>>20851944
>Why?
Fukuyama did me well enough on that, I see no need to repeat as I consider it a banal (obvious, see the Wittgenstein quote above) statement myself
>the category of individual freedom
there's no such thing as individual freedom. there's just freedom, and justice, or unfreedom and injustice
>I don't see why we should continue to think with their concepts
freedom isn't "their" concept and liberal democracy shouldn't be thought as such either if we accept its best-ness (not even debating permanence here, just philosophically, which i have to clarify now because i can sense you're a complete midwit)
>Symbolic thinking is a gift from God the Father that we may partake in the sacramental mystery of the Eucharist and live in accordance with His will. I'm more interested in human communities than with language.
what a display of intellectual cowardice and weakness

[Anonymous No.20852049]

>>20851578
Do you like The Last Psychiatrist blog

[Anonymous No.20852070]

>>20851582
Yes. Witty actually hated philosophy, he would often tell his students to quit and learn engineering or something useful instead.
Not a surprising opinion coming from an actual autistic homosexual pederast...

[Anonymous No.20852084]

>>20851578
Read a book you stupid nigger

[Pneumatique No.20852104]

>>20852049
what's it about?
>>20852084
what makes you think i'm not reading? i'm constantly reading. i do, however, prove /lit/ for recommendations, things i wouldn't have thought about, connections i wouldn't previously make, and thus become a better person. who do you become?
as an example, recently i learned of Charles Peirce thanks to /lit/ and I'm gonna sink my teeth into him for real after the semester

why not be more honest? you cant do philosophy if you're dishonest

[Anonymous No.20852153]

>>20851697
That's probably the more accurate term for what I meant but it boils down to the same principle ultimately.

[Anonymous No.20852322]

>>20851578
Plato dunks on Baudrillard. Or really, the two are simply talking past each other.

[Pneumatique No.20852336]

>>20852322
Baudrillard is useful because he provides a crucial venue to implant Plato into modern life

I did that myself, but I can't say that I don't respect Baudrillard. He's smarter than Debord and the true intellectual voice behind the situationist movement, which I consider myself to be the last representative of

[Anonymous No.20852459]

>>20851578
>Wittgenstein and Baudrillard are the final bosses to hitherto Philosophy
Nah Wittgenstein is more like the impossible sage and old sensei who most young upstarts try to beat, but through simple akido moves like shrugging or asking "what am I pointing at?" manages to rip out his opponents still beating heart. But if you manage to use similarly innocuous moves on him, and truly understand them, then he bows to you and announces "you are ready... kick the ladder" which means you're ready for the REAL final boss of philosophy who's probably one of the sophists
>and tell me, how do you know you are looking at the thing-it-self, and not the appearance of the thing-it-self?
>>20851619
And I can say a lot more than you about how your mother is a cumguzzling whore, but does that volume mean what I said is more accurate or salient than what you said?

[Anonymous No.20852654]

>>20852104
Psychological analysis on modern society. Pretty great writing

[Anonymous No.20852658]

>>20851944
Wittgenstein was Catholic. Retard

[Anonymous No.20852663]

>>20851985
>>20852658

[Anonymous No.20852670]

>>20851582
utilitarianism is the most poisonous concept ever introduced in that entire millennia

[Pneumatique No.20852675]

>>20852459
haven't you read Plato? sophistry isn't philosophy. sophists by definition can't be the final bosses of philosophy. anyway, my entire philosophical project is a refinement of Plato to refute the anti-philosophy of modernity that is all but a modern form of sophism, or what I'd call. the hyper-philosophy of the Capital (which is a hyper-entity/AI, and so on...)
>>20852654
that sounds like it's right up my alley but only if done right. and there's a very high likelihood it's done bad. i dislike pseudointellectualism because it's a waste of time. i crave the Truth and only the Truth

[Pneumatique No.20852680]

>>20852663
How does that go against anything I said? Modernity has this weird binary thinking about itself. You're either this or that. You can't be anything in between. It's either death of the author or the author is God. Grow up, people

[Anonymous No.20852685]

>people still getting filtered by Wittgenstein

[Pneumatique No.20852707]

>>20852685
Witty's the filter and Baudrillard/Lacan is the key is how I'd sum it up

[Anonymous No.20852733]

>>20852675
>sophists by definition can't be the final bosses of philosophy
...you're meant to defeat the final boss, if anything no philosopher can be the final boss of philosophy. That's how the analogy works. You're not supposed to kill the guy who's on your side in the final level of the game. You're meant to kill the bad guy. Sophistry is the biggest, hardest to kill of all bad guys. Therefore Sophistry is the final boss.
>my entire philosophical project
When did I ask about your entire anything!?

[Pneumatique No.20852741]

>>20852733
>you're meant to defeat the final boss
oh you're speaking in that sense.
the final boss, as always, is entropy and the fact of the dissipation of Humanity into nothing, regardless of whether that dissipation happens in a generation or some infinitely finite stretch of time. and how to make meaning out of that.

sophists don't deserve anything but scorn. though everyone deserves intellectual honesty, of course

[Anonymous No.20852758]

>>20852741
Stupid namefag

[Anonymous No.20852766]

>>20851578
youve read three philosophers or what?

[Pneumatique No.20852794]

>>20852758
repeating this thought-terminating cliche won't grant you wisdom

verbal amulets don't work, anon. they just don't.

[Anonymous No.20852837]

>>20852741
>the final boss, as always, is entropy
Don't even use the word 'entropy' again unless you're describing
1. the useable energy in a thermodynamic system
2. the probability of a given information event in a communication channel with a finite bandwidth, such as a telephone line, or a compression algorithm.
And no, they are not interchangeable Von Neumann just happened to notice that Shannon's equation was the same as Boltzmann's

[Anonymous No.20853559]

>>20851877
its a damn lonely fight, i hate the anti christ
best wishes brother

[Anonymous No.20854397]

>>20852837
>1. the useable energy in a thermodynamic system
how else do you think i defined it?

[Anonymous No.20854408]

>>20852336
I agree! Thanks anon for confirming to me that Debord wasn't worth my time if I already read Lasch and Baudrillard

[Anonymous No.20854469]

>>20854408
i think he's still worth to read but as an introduction though, or a recollection of the core ideas

[Anonymous No.20855588]

>>20854397
As a metaphor for nothingness that has nothing to do with the allegory between video game "final bosses" and ascendance through the hierarchy of philosophy. Equating entropy with nothingness is incompatible with the law of conversation means there is still something, since energy can never be destroyed. And discursively it is unrelated to the allegory between "final bosses", which are personifications clearly understood to be attached to either individual thinkers or schools.

[Anonymous No.20856067]

>>20851876
>we just have to also kill ourselves off shall we not?
You first.