/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23060534]

>single-handedly kills and buries philosophy once and for all

why does /lit/ hate him so much?

[Anonymous No.23060544]

>>23060534
Who? I don't keep track of men.

[Anonymous No.23060547]

>>23060534
I could kick his gay ass and therefore do not care

[Anonymous No.23060549]

>>23060534
is he that language guy? i've got no idea what he said desu

[Anonymous No.23060556]

>>23060534
Wut? He's one of our favorites.

[Anonymous No.23060561]

>>23060534
>single handedly kills and buries philosophy once and for all
>says nvm and then argues the exact opposite
This guy wasn't even sure himself, then everyone else pretended to understand that he's a genius. Probably pissed him off.

[Anonymous No.23060567]

>>23060561
Any adequately wise person will in fact not be sure of himself. We don't even need to leave the classics to understand that.

[sage No.23060569]

>>23060534
He BTFO Russell. That's all it matters.

[Anonymous No.23060580]

>philosophical problems are caused by arbitrary semantic choices and failures
Did I get it right?

[Anonymous No.23060587]

>>23060569
Wdym?

[Anonymous No.23060604]

>>23060567
Oh, I'm not blaming Wittgenstein. I think his admission was probably one of the few times any philosopher acted like an honest man and he deserves all the credit in the world for it.
But the culture that bred around his works depicting him as a genius probably annoyed him for that exact reason.
The geniuses always know that they literally don't understand shit, then people read their work where they're grappling with this and celebrate them for their understanding.
It would drive me nuts.

[Anonymous No.23060607]

>>23060549
He basically revealed that all words are just pointers to real-world stuff - therefore all philosophical problems come from assuming that every syntactically correct question must be semantically correct. Which isn't true.

E.g.
>"what's the purpose of this building" = what do people use this building for
>"what's the purpose of life" = what do ??? use life for -> meaningless question

He basically said "say it clearly or GTFO" to all philosophers before him

[Anonymous No.23060611]

>>23060587
He literally BTFO Karl Popper.
With a fire poker. There's a book about it.

[Anonymous No.23060617]

>>23060604
I think people like that would be driven nuts already as teenagers when they see what the people around them are doing. By the time you're publishing, teaching and old, you should've gotten used to it already.

[Anonymous No.23060619]

>>23060534
slightly-smarter-tier midwit filter

[Anonymous No.23060620]

>/lit/ hates qt sperger twinks
Do you have the wrong board?

[Anonymous No.23060623]

>>23060607
Yeah. And it spawned logical positivism. Then when he saw what that turned into he wrote another book and the first sentence was something like,
"If a man were to say he did not know if he had a hand, this wouldn't be intelligible to us. It may be sound and precise, but it means nothing to us as people. He sounds insane."

So he basically, didn't refute his prior philosophy, but just realized it was a nebulous problem as relates to the experience of life. The positivists were doing weirdo shit like trying to create a periodic table of axioms, and at some point I'd imagine Wittgenstein looked at that and said holy shit what have I spawned.

[Anonymous No.23060644]

>>23060534
Saying he killed and buried philosophy may be a bit extreme but I am a fan.

[Anonymous No.23060645]

>>23060619
>calls you a midwit
>doesn't elaborate
>leaves
holy chad

[Anonymous No.23060647]

>>23060644
What serious philosophical question remains after Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.23060652]

This dumb jew didn't kill philosophy, Hegel did

[Anonymous No.23060653]

>>23060556
holy shit i fucking love this orangutan-stealing man

[Anonymous No.23060659]

>>23060652
>push hermetic religion into the mainstream
>kill philosophy
lol

[Anonymous No.23060667]

>>23060647
Ummmm let's see...every single one of them

[Anonymous No.23060668]

>>23060534
His life seems very interesting based on his wiki. What's the best biography on him?

[Anonymous No.23060671]

>>hermetic religion
Bait used to be believable

[Anonymous No.23060685]

>>23060544
That explains why you probably don't remember you father.

[Anonymous No.23060698]

>>23060667
Well then, you shouldn't have any problem listing one (1) of them.

[Anonymous No.23060711]

>>23060698
What is reality? For starters.

[Anonymous No.23060729]

>fact
>case
>thing
What the fuck are these supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.23060746]

>>23060711
>What is reality
The world is everything that is the case.
The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
The world is determined by the facts,and by these being all the facts.
For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case
The facts in logical space are the world.

[Anonymous No.23060755]

>>23060746
OK, those are truisms.

[Anonymous No.23060886]

>>23060755
No, they're not.

[Anonymous No.23060929]

>>23060755
t. doesn't know
I don't know why people on /lit/ would even pretend to have read the Tractatus, there have probably been 3 anons total since the inception of the board who could even read the whole thing

[Anonymous No.23061173]

>>23060929
It's 75 pages of shit communication that Wittgenstein himself makes look retarded by what he wrote on semantics and language games later on.

[Anonymous No.23061241]

>>23060929
Nta but Wittgenstein did say that the book would likely only be understood by those who had at some point thought the same thoughts he had expressed. I read it 3 times while I was in prison and I remember thinking this guy had definitely been a prisoner at some point, or perhaps something close to it.

[Anonymous No.23061284]

>>23061241
>Nta but Wittgenstein did say that the book would likely only be understood by those who had at some point thought the same thoughts he had expressed.
I definitely don't get it. He seems to presuppose his own entire worldview in the writing of Tractatus- before he even makes his initial assertions. At the same time he won't bother elaborating on his core beliefs, axioms, to an extent needed for an outsider to hone in on exactly what he means. He's playing an almost private language-game, where someone like me is left guessing for the rules.

It's an ego-project.

[Anonymous No.23061285]

>>23060607
That sounds like saying obvious stuff and thinking it's profound, meh

[Anonymous No.23061299]

>>23061284
Maybe you should try reading the Tractatus next time.

[Anonymous No.23061305]

>>23061299
I'm happy for you if you share your worldview with someone so notable. Do you feel good about yourself?

[Anonymous No.23061362]

[Anonymous No.23061526]

>>23061285
Yeah but he formalized it in a language academiafags understand. He BTFOd them with their own weapons.

Any retard can say "hurr philosophy is meaningless", but it takes a genius to explain why in a pedantic way.

[Anonymous No.23061623]

>>23060556
I must now read everything he ever wrote.

[Anonymous No.23061635]

>>23060556
Was he autistic?

[Anonymous No.23062226]

>>23060607
>apophantic tautologies

He & Heidegger make good tag-team partners; it has yet to be synthesized.

[Anonymous No.23062241]

>>23060886
They literally are.
>the definition of a word is what it means and also infers its opposite
Wow so wild
>>23060929
I read the entire thing when I was 22 years old. Sniff up on your own farts a Lil more G. It's just not that good. I remember reading it and understanding it but also seeing through it as I was reading it, and as this anon points out
>>23061173
I then read his later books and was like OK phew even this guy realizes that shit was just autistic nonsense

[Anonymous No.23062267]

>>23060607
That’s fine but most of his ilks’ disregard for metaphysics irks me.

[Anonymous No.23062290]

Bros it makes me sad that you love him so much because his philosophy is the perfect depiction of why autism kills the soul, literally. The fact that his arguments were all flawless is the exact reason they don't actually tell anybody anything, that's why he spazzed about semantics and language games later, it hit him at some point that that type of merely descriptive, logical truth is totally worthless, regardless of its truth content.

Imagine you're at a party and someone goes oh my God guys what's the point of this game and some fedora wearing faggot in the corner goes "heh heh well the point of the game is determined by what the people playing the game want it to be based on their objective in playing the game, this is necessarily the case" then smiles like a tryhard asshole and everyone shrugs and goes back to figuring out the game. And he's like "but guys I'm right like thats a perfect argument there's no flaw, guys" and now they're drinking and having fun "guys think about it like that has to be true, that's what the point is" people are upstairs getting laid he's in the corner by himself "I conquered all philosophy"

[Anonymous No.23062337]

>>23060534
but what about abstract mathematics? or the fact that a limitless amount of the world lies outside the boundrys of proof?

[Anonymous No.23062344]

>>23062337
Fuck
What about the experience of having a bond with your dog
What's Wittgenstein got to say about that

[Anonymous No.23062893]

>>23061635
Almost certainly, although that diagnosis didn't exist yet. However, and >>23061623, I'm pretty sure those particular quotes were made up by /lit/. He did do some odd stuff though.

[Anonymous No.23063094]

>>23060534
I relate to him a lot as a person but I'm not a philosopher and havr never read any so he's cut off from me

[Anonymous No.23063269]

>>23062241
>I read the entire thing when I was 22 years old. [...] I remember reading it and understanding it but also seeing through it as I was reading it

[Anonymous No.23063365]

>>23063269
I did. I'm pretty smart and always had talent for understanding philosophical arguments. It's not a brag it just true its the only thing thats ever made much natural sense to me

Why are people so insecure

[Anonymous No.23063381]

>>23060607
How wasn't that already obvious?

[Anonymous No.23063670]

>>23060607
The second one is not problematic as soon as you realize we have no free will to use our life in any way purpoted by the question. You can own a builiding and use it, you don't own yourself and can't use you.

[Anonymous No.23063845]

>>23063365
>Why are people so insecure
You seem like the insecure one, going around telling people you're smart and talented
Besides, there are many people out there who believe they are smart and talented (delusion), when in fact they are not (reality)

[Anonymous No.23063933]

>>23063845
I say it as a matter of fact because it's evident through my experience. I don't think I'm smarter or more talented than I am and merely said this because you implied that I wasn't smart or talented enough to have done it. In other words, I'm realistically secure in my abilities, and you drew first blood.