[ 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: 5 KB, 160x239, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2138015 [Reply] [Original]

most influential book of the XX century

>> No.2138218

He's not as conservative as Wittgenstein, not as Liberal as Derrida, and not as much of a loudmouth as Chomsky, so don't expect anybody on /lit/ to have ever heard of him or read this book.

I recommended it to somebody who wanted to learn about the philosophy of language a few days ago, I hope he actually reads it.

>> No.2138236
File: 22 KB, 185x268, faggits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

superior

>> No.2138243

>>2138015
can i pirate this book or do i have to buy a hard copy

>> No.2138246

>>2138218
it's just a very niche area of philosophy compared to witt or chom

>> No.2138256

>>2138236
Wouldn't exist without Austin

>> No.2138266

>>2138256
correct. and that makes it not superior or even worth mentioning

>> No.2138267

I'm not an analytic philosopher, so I might be missing some important nuances. But I don't understand why people this book is so important. To me Austin's ideas seem like interesting explorations in the vein of "hmm, that's clever, I never thought of things that way before"; I don't get why some people consider them a mindblowing discovery/revelation.

>> No.2138299

>>2138266
How can it be more influential than the book that influenced it?

>> No.2138308

>>2138299
this is happening in this thread

>> No.2138309

>>2138299
That's an idiotic question. Consider the hypothetical:

>Book A inspires Book B
>Book B reaches a wider audience than Book A, is considered the superior text
>Book B inspires more people than Book A could have hoped to
>Book B is more influential

>> No.2138334

>>2138267
He basically shifted the paradigm of examining sentences/language/speech as "representative" and into the realm of any other willful human act, like choosing to drink a beer or choosing to put on shoes, an aspect of language that philosophy had more or less been ignoring, and as such had been disqualifying a HUGE volume of examples of language use which could not fit into some sort of true/false representative paradigm.

Basically, if I look at your post, the previous way of analyzing that statement would be to say that you are expressing a verifiable truth about your understanding of why people find this book important, whereas, observed as a speech act, we can say that you are attempting to illicit a response from other people vis a vis the semantic content of what you said.

The concept of speech acts explains why I can respond to you this way, instead of saying, "Yes, you don't understand it."

Furthermore, this can be extrapolated out, in some manner, not just to interpersonal dialogues, but personal ones as well, and in some sense explain how we manage to reason internally using language and reason, as well as all manner of other interesting things we can say about language.

That's certainly not all there is to it, just a little bit of me trying to explain what I get out of it. I'm sure by the time I hit submit somebody will have already given you a better answer, oh well

>> No.2138348

>>2138334
>He basically shifted the paradigm of examining sentences/language/speech as "representative"

Austin's notes written in crayon: 1955

Philosophical Investigations: 1953

NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE WITTGENSTEIN DID WHAT YOU THINK AUSTIN DID