[ 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: 25 KB, 500x357, tumblr_lft0w9TXpn1qgvu84o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2384370 No.2384370 [Reply] [Original]

why did people continue to make philosophy after him?

he just teared everything down and showed how pointless philosophy is.

>> No.2384377

he did not tear everything down. he concluded a part of it. have you actually read any philosophers after wittgenstein? do you not realise that the things they speak of do not really fall under "whereof you cannot speak..."?

>> No.2384378

> why did people continue to make philosophy after him

I abstain from my usual social commentary

and btw, this isn't a stencil of a sophist

>> No.2384405

>>2384401
tore

>> No.2384407

>>2384377
i'm under the impression that everyone here on /lit/ only know Wittgenstein's tractatus

im talking about late Wittgenstein. he teared everything down (including the tractatus)

>> No.2384411

>>2384407
nah there will be people on lit who have. wait for d and e, he knows everything.

>> No.2384413

OP cannot into innate curiosity of mankind.

>> No.2384418

Hume.
Custom and habit brah!

>> No.2384423

>>2384413
and who said philosophy is the only means to feed that «curiosity»

>> No.2384441

I read the blue and brown books by W this christmas, now I'm reading ethical philosophy for school and find myself trying to stop thinking Wittgensteinian thoughts. Do not recommend him until you have read most of the western canon (philosophy).

To OP: 2deep4u

>> No.2384442

>>2384423

Philosophy deals with certain subjects that the sciences cannot.

It will continue to be practised by human beings, especially as our world continues to become less well-read and certain notions need to be re-arrived at.

>> No.2384444

>>2384407

It is clear that you have no idea of current analytic philosophy. Wittgenstein only helped push in the right direction.

besides, we didn't really need wittgenstein to figure out that most metaphysics and the entire field of ethics are baseless.

>> No.2384474

He didn't tear everything down. He made things clear and took away all the unnecessary bullshit.

>> No.2384475

>>2384441
blue and brown were only a passage philosophy made while developing late philosophy. and yeah philosophy is too deep for me cause it makes out of nothing its own depth. it is not a matter of arguing for or against the "canon of philosophy" but to take a different approach.

>>2384444
true. i've no clue on analytic philosophy. my interest in W is more on the anthropological consequences of his late philosophy, where his early was only a step.

>> No.2384480

>>2384444
You seem to know a lot about analytical philosophy, can you recommend some "modern" works?

>> No.2384481

> im talking about late Wittgenstein. he teared everything down (including the tractatus)

he only teared down his own bullshit misconceptions

>> No.2384501

>>2384474
yeah i know. but clearing things up and revealing the misconceptions that motive metaphysical thought is in a way tearing it down no?

>> No.2384505

Hey OP what exactly is pointless about clarifying problematic concepts in language?

>> No.2384508

>>2384505
that they are not at all problematic. what is problematic is the approach that makes us think of it as a problem.

>> No.2384518 [DELETED] 

>>2384508
>what is problematic is the approach that makes us think of it as a problem.
I'm not sure I follow. Can you tell me how wanting toclarify concepts whose usages currently present difficulties in different discourses? What is problematic about this?

>> No.2384519

To OP: because not all of us can be fucking geniuses like Wittgenstein, that's why.

>> No.2384521

>>2384518
I'm not sure I follow. Can you tell me how the approach of wanting to clarify concepts whose usages currently present difficulties in different discourses is problematic?

>> No.2384526

>>2384518
>wanting toclarify concepts whose usages currently present difficulties

i'm not saying that that desire is problematic in itself; what is problematic is what motivates it and makes it look as a perfect legitimate problem.

"problems that have no solutions are not problems"

>> No.2384533

What is "philosophy"? Who are "people"? What do you mean by "everything"?

>> No.2384539

>>2384533

What is what is?

>> No.2384541

>>2384533
>philosophy
metaphysical thought
>people
2nd half of the XXth century
>everything
300 years of cartesianism

>> No.2384542

>>2384526
>what is problematic is what motivates it
I can understand this in one respect, and I can certainly see how some motivations are problematic, such as reductive impulses, striving for generalities or absolutes, typical metaphysical reasons.

But I'm failing to see what relevance this has to other motivations, such as wanting to clarify concepts whose usages currently present difficulties in different discourses. This motivation has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to frame one thing or another as "a perfect legitimate problem" (whatever this is supposed to mean).

>"problems that have no solutions are not problems"
Sure, they're pseudo-problems. But that doesn't address at all the reality of the world we live in where we have to address for the sake of clear, productive discourse, concepts and issues in their usage. Simply saying that there aren't any "real problems" philosophical or otherwise has no bearing on this hard fact of reality.

>> No.2384547
File: 483 KB, 3000x2983, 128129110388.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2384547

>everyone was wrong all along

>> No.2384558

Thank you but logical atomism is still going strong.

>> No.2384565

>>2384558
What a shame. Atomism is balls.

>> No.2384578

>>2384547
>thinks the human mind can congest all of the truths of the universe, let alone ourselves.

Its all speculations, no more, no less and I'm fine with that.

>> No.2384587

>>2384578
I think so too, I'll just putting it in a fun way

>> No.2384596
File: 7 KB, 190x212, tired-yawn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2384596

yeah man it's all use-based meaning and language games and shit there's no real problems man just use family resemblance definition lol expand when you need to and contract when necessary there's no private language beetles in boxes klein bottleswe don't have to listen to any asian philosophy whatsoever and philosophy isn't sky-wizardry what a tweest etc etc etc etc

Actually addressing specific, contextual issues in language and wide-open texture is for stupid people and continental philosophers who aren't in solipsistic ivory towers and can't appreciate how language really works like we can amirite

>> No.2384602

>>2384542
mmm well, i dont think we "frame" problems as we please. its not a matter of what we think we do or dont. i guess it is rather that some things look like problems because we are "fooled" by language.

i understand it like this: as W says, a word's meaning is it use, and they are used in specific "language games", and all of them form a "form of life". what is problematic is that we forget this, keep using words as if they had only one meaning and try to use them like this in every language game.

so, when you speak of "other motivations", i think they remain attached to the 1st ones you mentioned.

>> No.2384610

For the same reason he maintained an interest in ethics an aesthetics. It's important.

>> No.2384618

>>2384610
shit. but realizing that makes it look so void.

>> No.2384624

>>2384407
>teared

Again, you mean tore.

>> No.2384626

>>2384596
contrasting this with the crap you posted a year ago, I am surprised

>> No.2384635

>>2384602
Thank you, yes, I understand W.'s later stance and methodology, it's just that what I've been saying I take to be perfectly consonant with that.

>when you speak of "other motivations", i think they remain attached to the 1st ones you mentioned.
Really? Even "wanting to clarify concepts whose usages currently present difficulties in different discourses"? Let's reformulate that with terms you might be more comfortable with: "wanting to clarify the uses of concepts within different language games where there is a large degree of uncertainty or misunderstanding"
Here I'm interested in why you think that this sort of motivation is anything like "reductive impulses, striving for generalities or absolutes, typical metaphysical reasons."

>> No.2384636

>>2384596
lol
i guess since his writings are incongruous with the half baked deluded mysticism youre into and fucking aleister crowley you've had to drop him eh...typical inconsistent vagina.

>> No.2384643

>>2384636

Wittgenstein,early and late, can rightly be described as a mystic.

>> No.2384672 [DELETED] 

>>2384635
well thanks, you read my mind. at 1st i wanted to question your question cause you didnt clarify that you meant this clarification WITHIN different language games, i.e. clarify them in the different cases where they are used, even if its the same word.

so, i would agree with you about the "different motivations" if by philosophy we mean this "clarification within every particular language game", which would simply be a theraphy that allows us to reach the übersicht (general view or whatever, i forgot the translation).

>>2384624
i just mispelled it. but i used it right. now i learned the correct form of the word but already knew its use (meaning).

>> No.2384675

>>2384672
>i just mispelled it. but i used it right. now i learned the correct form of the word but already knew its use (meaning).
You know, language is only useful if it makes sense. That fucking didn't.

>> No.2384677

>>2384635
well thanks, you read my mind. at 1st i wanted to question your question cause you didnt clarify that you meant this clarification WITHIN different language games, i.e. clarify them in the different cases where they are used, even if its the same word.

so, i would agree with you about the "different motivations" if by philosophy we mean this "clarification within every particular language game", which would simply be a theraphy that allows us to reach the übersicht (general view or whatever, i forgot the translation).

>> No.2384681

>>2384643
>>2384643

wittgenstein's prescriptions are immanent and material world oriented, without the ontological loading and self-deceiving rituals of mysticism. the connection is vague at best, and symmetric with a very small fraction of mysticism (a very weak mysticism, and certainly not the kind which that deluded retard above is into).

>> No.2384682

>>2384675
lol i know. i wanted to erase that but forgot to

>> No.2384722
File: 47 KB, 500x333, tomcruise.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2384722

lol b-b-back dat ass up guys it's okay cos his nonsense is small and their nonsense is big

>> No.2384746

>>2384722

>gets rectally excavated
>tomcruse.jpg

>> No.2384747

>>2384681
>That is to say: I see now that these nonsensical expressions were not nonsensical because I had not yet found the correct expressions, but that their nonsensicality was their very essence. For all I wanted to do with them was just to go beyond the world and that is to say beyond significant language. My whole tendency and, I believe, the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language.

>This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.

He denies transcendental propositions the possibility of truth value, but he considers them more important than any proposition of science. The difference between he and a mystic is only the meaning of the word "truth" as they use it.

>> No.2384756

>>2384722

have you noticed how stupid you look?

>> No.2384762

>>2384747
>>2384747
>>2384747

>gets backed into a corner
>drops his tripcode and resorts to vacuous sophistry, all the while conceding the point.

what a joke.

>> No.2384763

this 'satan' nigger is back

for fuck's sake

this guy's a retard

>> No.2384764

hey tripjerks gtfo

>> No.2384768
File: 38 KB, 940x454, lennycannotintoanalysis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2384768

>>2384763
Hey bro can you into literature yet?

>> No.2384774

>>2384763

lol
who the fuck

>> No.2384777

>>2384774
>>2384763
>>2384768
this>>2384764