/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2455988]

>tfw all your past philosophical concerns, which seemed so deep and definitive, just vanished and now all you want is to live peacefully away from all this irrelevant things we learn to desire during the early years of life.

[Anonymous No.2455990]

I know that feel...but are you going to do it?
>mfw i'm living the peaceful, unaffected life

[Anonymous No.2455991]

you just broke your philosophical hymen

now you find out whether you REALLY enjoy philosophy, when all your pretense is gone, and you really realize for the first time that you know jackshit, and so do all the greatest thinkers

[Anonymous No.2455996]

Yeah, I felt like I obtained inner peace. I mean i didn't because I still have ridiculous rage coiled up in my gut that will one day either be expressed through murder or an aneurysm, but it felt that way.

[Anonymous No.2455999]

This is pretty much how I feel, it seems to have happened after I had some pretty bad breakdowns in uni, sort of sorted myself out, took a couple of life-changing decisions, stabilized my relationship (later got married), etc.

I just can't really bring myself to care much anymore, and while I know it is bad, I feel like the best place to look for the meaning or solution to any problem is in myself.

Maybe I have turned into a pleb?

feels pretty good though, see >>2455990 .gif

[Anonymous No.2456003]

>>2455990
well, im doing it for the moment. it's quite nice; but people around me, that do not understand this (and theres no reason for them to, it wont be of any use for them), seem to stand in my path. should i just ignore them?

>>2455991
well i think that philosophy is only «fun» when you're against the wall, when you are truly struggling. but when it just seems like any other activity it just loses its «charm». imo

[Anonymous No.2456010]

>>2456003
I don't think you ignore them I mean just cultivate the inner peace and talk to them about what they feel like talking about, except you will have the advantage of not being so concerned with how ''right'' you are...if that makes sense..i don't know for me it's just a process and it does take a lot of time away from other people

[Anonymous No.2456028]

>>2456010
i understand that. but i guess im not at "that level" yet, so to speak. i just cant "talk to them about what they feel like talking about" cause every time i do it, it just annoys me and makes me lose all the stability i had reached. it just seems a waste of "energy". i mean, my shit is pointless for them, theirs is pointless for me.

[Anonymous No.2456031]

>>2455988
>we quietist now

All good and well and I know your sentiments, but how will you act? What about ethics? Have these revelations made you an amoralist? What shall you do while living peacefully? Why this and not something else?

[Anonymous No.2456032]

>>2456028
I can understand that..this is why i don't listen to music with lyrics anymore....

[Anonymous No.2456041]

>>2456031
Not OP, I can only speak for myself, but I find that its not necessary to codify actions with some immutable moral law, its enough to judge actions individually. I know my ethical beliefs are constructed by evolution, biological chance, my environment, my experiences, but those things are all part of me, and i see no cause to abandon them. There is, IMO, an adolescent urge to say "screw society, its all filled with irrational sheeple, and reject being the product of it". But it is enough to realize that in being a part of it we are capable of shaping it in part. As I condone or condemn, as I create and contribute we give our beliefs some motive force into society.

The loss of the absolute doesn't condemn us as relativists to say "well they think its okay over there, so i guess its fine", instead it just requires that we should fight for our beliefs on equal footing, instead of preaching from the clouds. We are free to condemn, and even if we feel strongly enough take arms against an injustice, it isn't a matter of impotence, but a matter of extraordinary responsibility. We are all, whether we realize it or not, participating in the creation of morality for each and ever separate action, not carrying out law from on high.

[Anonymous No.2456050]

>>2456041
So you're sort of saying you make shit up as you go along? Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law, to put it in corny terms? Because that's the only alternative to some sort of ethical system. Moral judgement is after all comparative, so if you don't have some sort of system or guideline in relation to which an act can be deemed good or not, you're just fucking around. Not that I find anything wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.2456073]

>>2455991

>all the greatest thinkers know jackshit

I'll take what Ludwig W has to say about language over the random dickhead on the street any day. What you say doesn't really make any sense.

[Anonymous No.2456077]

>>2456050
Thou doest what thou wilt, and I shall judge as I will and act accordingly.

The world isn't just a series of one-on-one duels, a moral judgement doesn't really mean much if its just the two of us on a desert island. The language of morality is useful only within a society. (by that I don't mean that its useless between societies, but that its quite meaningless on an individual scale).

[Anonymous No.2456080]

>>2456041

You haven't explained how you know an action is wrong.

If it's just a gut feeling, that's pretty abhorrent, and it justifies things like murdering gays because they're gay. Or beating up a guy because he has strange hair.

[Anonymous No.2456083]

>>2456080
>implying that's not a viable way of doing about your business as long as you won't be punished for it

[Anonymous No.2456093]

>>2456073
Well I think you're missing a point that Wittgenstein tried to make which is that we have to pay attention to the ordinary use of language instead of offering words up to abstracted, contextualized or metaphysical meaning and in this way he was kind of saying that all of the ''great thinkers'' were guilty of pointless efforts and since he wasn't making positive claims himself but rather clearing up a lot of confusion, I don't think you can really take his word on language...

[Anonymous No.2456097]

>>2456080
It could conceivable justify a person to do such a thing, but I have my faith in humanity that more people stand with me against them than with them. I shall be moved to take action to stop such an such things, or to punish those who have done them.

[Anonymous No.2456101]

>>2456041
>>2456050

(op here)
wait a sec. what is morals / ethics for you guise? for me morals is just an external agent that tries to impose some rules with a random self-proofing justification, whilst ethics is the way of acting that you have managed to "construct" and that goes according to your worldview.

it needs no justification because you have constructed it, or at least you have followed the whole process, whilst you only know the final result in the 1st case, so it does not really make full sense to you.

[Anonymous No.2456102]

>>2456097
So your ethical system is based on the vague assumption that most peoples inner hippie will come out when required.

Great.

[Anonymous No.2456115]

>>2456102
Not at all. My ethical system is based on being a member of society. Having been raised in it. Having been a part of it. Having been shaped by it. Participating in shaping it. And coming to know it.

I don't not need to justify my ethical beliefs to myself, for they are a part of me. I follow them when they move me. I act and judge according to them. And my ethical beliefs are largely a product of my society. Its not about people's inner hippie coming out, its simply that I know where I come from.

[Anonymous No.2456141]

>>2456097

>I have my faith in humanity that more people stand with me against them than with them. I shall be moved to take action to stop such an such things, or to punish those who have done them.

So your vision of an ideal moral society is eternal ideological war?

[Anonymous No.2456162]

>>2456141
I don't have any vision of an "ideal moral society". I don't know what that would mean.

As for an eternal ideological war, I don't believe in defending an ideology.

[Anonymous No.2456169]

Know that feel well bro. Just to be clear though I'm not a Wittgensteinian. I would prefer to be completely quiet, and that would include being quiet about Wittgenstein's ideas. I'm just as attracted by traditional metaphysics of the kind done by Plato and Armstrong as by the anti-metaphysical philosophy of Wittgenstein. All of it seems to me equally uncertain. Maybe this is simply to say I'm not really a philosopher, I just thought I was for a while.

[Anonymous No.2456177]

>>2456162

>I don't believe in defending an ideology.

Then what do you call this?
>that more people stand with me against them than with them

"us against them" sure sounds like a fight for ideology.

[Anonymous No.2456180]

>>2456169
You could probably very well into Pyrrhonian skepticism.

[Anonymous No.2456184]

>>2456177
But we're not, we're fighting over a action.

[Anonymous No.2456185]

>>2456184

Actions are informed by ideology. If you'd like to explain a way to find an action wrong that isn't backed by ideology, I'd like to hear it.

[Anonymous No.2456189]

>>2456185
Sure, but not all ideology informs action. We're only fighting over the actions.

[Anonymous No.2456191]

>>2456031
as for how to act as a quietist, I have just relaxed by intellectual grip on my moral intuitions. By that I mean that I don't try to mould them into a neat propositional or universal form by strength of will if that doesn't feel right. I just do what comes naturally. That kind of position seems to have been interpreted by someone in this thread as a 'do what thou wilt' stance, but that's not how I see my position - it's not a case of thinking my will is supreme, and a guide to the good, it's a case of removing all intellectual intermediaries from my moral compass. So I would say I don't equate The Good with what I will - I don't equate it with anything. I simply recognise I have a moral sense, by which I mean that some things look to me to be bad and some things look to me to be good, and I allow that sense to influence my actions. So I am a moral agent without an explicit moral philosophy; a moral quietist to go along with my general quietism. If after that anyone would still like to ask how I act, then I would have to resort to specific cases, like describing how I would act if I saw something breaking into a house, or hitting a child, etc. I don't try to generalise from such specific cases and I don't try to analyse them, because that doesn't feel natural, useful or wise anymore.

[Anonymous No.2456195]

>>245618

>Sure, but not all ideology informs action

So because you won't always be fighting over ideology, only sometimes, you feel justified in saying that you don't fight over ideology?

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore the ideological backing of the actions you're fighting against, but that doesn't change the reality.

[Anonymous No.2456203]

>>2456195
I refuse to be moved to fight by empty words or thoughts. I shall debate ideology, or speak against it perhaps, but it goes against my conscience to be moved to fight on ideology alone.

[Anonymous No.2456209]

>>2456191
Alright, sounds reasonable, man. I guess you probably like or would like the Tao Te Ching and general taoist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2456211]

>>2456203

Ideology is not just empty words and thoughts.

We're going in circles now.

[Anonymous No.2456216]

>>2456211
And like i said, when it blossoms into actions, I may be moved to fight, but I will not be moved to fight over ideology alone.

[Anonymous No.2456225]

There is no ideology but the post-facto or retroactive application of ideology to actions..ideology is nothing but justification

[Anonymous No.2456233]

>>2456216

STOP DIVORCING IDEOLOGY FROM ACTION FUCK

THEY'RE NOT TWO SEPARATE THINGS

WHEN YOU FIGHT OVER ACTION YOU FIGHT OVER IDEOLOGY

I'M NOT SAYING IT AGAIN YOU'RE JUST IGNORING WHAT I'M SAYING PLUGGING YOUR FUCKING EARS AND GOING LA LA LA LA LA I'M FIGHTING OVER ACTION NOT IDEOLOGY THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT STOP TELLING THEY'RE NOT

FUCK I'M SO MAD

[Anonymous No.2456235]

>that feel when suspending thought and judgement
>that slightly warm and pleasant feel
>that barely noticeable smile
>all's well with the tao

[Anonymous No.2456240]

>>2456233
>STOP DIVORCING IDEOLOGY FROM ACTION FUCK
>THEY'RE NOT TWO SEPARATE THINGS

But what if I want to gain a powerful and wealthy position in society but want to claim I'm a Christian too? :( The western world was built on this convenient hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.2456243]

>>2456240

Your actions are informed by an egoistic ideology they justifies lying in order to get what you want.

[Anonymous No.2456244]

>>2456233
But they're not the same thing. The same action could follow from many ideologies, the same ideology could be fail to be acted upon. Actions are actions. Ideologies are ideologies.

[Anonymous No.2456245]

>>2456243

that*

[Anonymous No.2456248]

>>2456243
And what if i just don't consider the hypocrisy and act without reflection?

[Anonymous No.2456249]

>>2456248

[Anonymous No.2456252]

>>2456244

And whichever ideology created the action you're fighting against is the ideology you're fighting against.

I'm not going to keep going in circles like this. You're just willfully believing whatever nonsense you want to because you're really dedicated to you holding this position.

You'd be killing people based on ideology, and as I said, you can stick your head in the sand and ignore that all you like, but it doesn't change the truth.

Not arguing anymore, it's going in circles.

[Anonymous No.2456253]

>>2456248

It's not hypocrisy. Pretending to be a Christian to gain advantage would be perfectly in line with your ideology.

And not reflecting on it doesn't change the reality.

[Anonymous No.2456254]

>>2456243
That they are. And it's still the most effective and convenient way to achieve your goals. Morality at large is mostly a enormous case of the emperor's new clothes.

[Anonymous No.2456255]

No ideology but realpolitik (and therefore no ideology except in hypocrisy) and no truth but in objects (and the subjective evaluation of truth is a task that is best kept to a minimal)

[Anonymous No.2456261]

>>2456252
What gave you the impression an argument should go in any other way? One does not debate to change an opponents mind, such an act would be completely pointless.

>And whichever ideology created the action you're fighting against is the ideology you're fighting against
But its not, you only ever fight for your own belief. It doesn't matter which particular ideology your opponent had in mind when he acted in a manner you find sufficiently objectionable, all that matters is it is unconscionable to you.

[Anonymous No.2456264]

>>2456253
So you can hold an ideology even without holding an ideology? I fear your use of the word 'ideology' has become far too liberal. Perhaps we must perform a semantic readjustment if we are to move forward.

[Anonymous No.2456265]

Science is not some philosophy.

Science +4
Philosophy -53
Fuck yea

[Anonymous No.2456267]

>>2456264

You can hold an ideology without consciously holding an ideology, yes.

[Anonymous No.2456271]

>>2456267
I don't think this is true you can't actually hold an ideology without holding it..this is more postmodernist bullshit...in fact your actions may resemble an ideology at times (coincidentally mind you) and you may even justify those actions with that same ideology at a later date because it is so convenient, but no, people are not vessels for warring ideologies...good god.

[Anonymous No.2456272]

>>2456267
On that we disagree deeply.

[Anonymous No.2456275]

>>2456271
I would not call that postmodernist. The idea that we can uncover some hidden law of minds that governs actions, that is not postmodern in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.2456277]

Why can't ethics and morality just be solved by, treat others how you'd like to be treated? Except psychos who you avoid or destroy

[Anonymous No.2456281]

>>2456275
No i think it is post-modern to assume people can act in ideological ways without actually being a subject of this or that ideology ''consciously'' as it were...post-modernity is highly concerned with the breakdown of ''modern'' conventions such as highly developed ideologies and i have heard the idea that people are merely the collusion of fragmentary ''forces'' such as ideology and this idea to me is repugnant and supposes that people are merely agents of cultural forces beyond their control (in fact, beyond any control) and that parenthetical piece is exactly why post-modernity is the opposite of radical, even though it is seen by so many as being completely radical, because in a sense it denies the possibility of control..it uses its own incredulity of narratives and meta as a jumping off point to deny the power of these narratives in the real world today..but the narratives are powerful and they are in fact something that almost everyone in society participates in..it is not simply a ''history written by the winner'' phenomenon but rather an entire world shaping its narratives and reaching points of critical mass where the narrative changes..so when someone suggests that a person is acting as an agent of say fascism, by some action where they may have been, in their own mind, acting as a christian it is to me postmodern in the sense that deconstruction is postmodern.

[Anonymous No.2456363]

its a good feel

[Anonymous No.2456921]

>>2456277
The only problem is its too easy to label everyone you don't like a psycho.

[Anonymous No.2456925]

Is there anybody on /lit/ that questions Wittgenstein? It seems like you guys read his stuff like it's the KJV or somethin'.

[Anonymous No.2456926]

>>2456925
Well between early Wittgenstein and Late, you have plenty to choose from.

[Anonymous No.2456927]

>>2456925
Why would anyone read his stuff when the conclusions can only be confirmed or denied by scientific tests or linguistics?

[Anonymous No.2457671]

>>2455988
How does one achieve this? Is it strictly borne out of age or can it be triggered by something else?

[Anonymous No.2457685]

Whenever I'm feeling masochistic, I'll try and get into Wittgenstein. WTF tractortus. Somebody explain his work to me, help. Do you have to read the entire canon of western philosophy to get him

[Anonymous No.2457692]

Scrub.

[Anonymous No.2457772]

>>2457685
What.

Wittgenstein is the clearest and most logical fucker of all time. At least in the Tractatus days.

[Anonymous No.2457774]

>>2457671
Go into philosophy until error and then let it all go.

[Anonymous No.2457996]

Wittgenstein's approach: you are plagued by thoughts and genuinely bothered by philosophical problems. so, you try to get your thoughts straight so that you can stop asking questions and quiet your mind.

Heidegger's approach: open your mind and allow being to flow through you. when you do that, you capture something coming into being, moving from the dark of un-truth (latheia) into the light of the truth (a-latheia).


i used to be like Wittgenstein, now i am more like Heidegger.

getting old is useful, i'm too tired to be plagued by constant worry and thinking. it's fun now to just clear my mind and let LOGOS pour in.

[Anonymous No.2458003]

>>2457685

cliffs:
Frege is right. propositions state facts. the world is made up of facts. thoughts express propositions. thoughts are spoken or written.

if Frege is right, then the only propositions that can exist are the ones that are about the world.

he is, so that is the case.

then no other kind of language is meaningful, since the only way to have meaning is to encode / express facts.

therefore, all the important problems of life cannot be answered, since they do not involve facts, and the questions themselves cannot even be posed, since they can't be answered.

so, only say what can be said.

what can't be said, don't say.
that's it bro.

[Anonymous No.2458008]

After 10 years of studying philosophy I just understood (two weeks ago) that it was just a nazi farmer playing with german and greek; it was just intellectual juggling with dead languages and people taking themselves too seriously.

[Anonymous No.2458016]

>>2457996


When I think of Heidegger, all I can see in my mind is an old farmer plowing his potato field with his wife cooking potato soup over their oven.

Heidegger is clearly the most philosophical farmer that ever existed; the Being speaks through him but he's too busy knitting himself socks to hear it.

[Anonymous No.2458021]

>>2458016
Hamsun was a way more philosophical farmer..and Ingmar Bergman...

[Anonymous No.2458024]

>>2458021

>arguing over rethorics

[Anonymous No.2458039]

>>2458003
Nicely said. It obviously leaves a gaping gap though. Cue mysticism.

[Anonymous No.2458061]

Could apathy be considered willful ignorance? Not that I'm not more than interested in learning about science and philosophy. It's just that I don't worry that much about it applied to my own life.

[Anonymous No.2458086]

>>2458061
That's the whole problem these days. Academic philosophers who do a little Wittgenstein in the morning, some Rawls in the afternoon and around five o' clock go home and watch tv with the rest of them. Step your game up.

>"Why do you bother to live," Diogenes retorted, "if you can't be bothered to live properly?"

[Anonymous No.2458103]

>>2458086
>Nietzsche was a permavirgin who was dominated by his sister after he got consigned to a daycare

>ubermensch

[Anonymous No.2458109]

>>2458103

Babby's first reading of Nietzsche?

The übermensch is an idealist concept, not a material concept.

You probably think that the übermensch represents the "perfect human" or the human that's closer to God. Well that's wrong and maybe you should try to read Nietzsche on a fucking deeper degree.

[Anonymous No.2458111]

>>2458016

that's the image he intentionally cultivated. his German is also very folksy.

>>2458039

yes, indeed. that's the upshot of the book. which is why the Logical Positivists thought science crushes metaphysics, since all that shit is impossible.

>>2458103

you are not doing the man justice at all.

[Anonymous No.2458113]

What was Wittgenstein's real impact if we put it in perspective? He was around the same time as Heidegger and what did he do that Heidegger didn't take a step beyond with already? Tractus came out a couple years before but Being and Time already had all the Late Era Witt straightened out before Late Era Witt. Sure, he separated the language from the implications but apart from that. What else am i supposed to find there?

Heidegger really did straighten out an important part of western philosophy especially concerning metaphysics. He brought that shit back to the core. He put that doubt to rest.

[Anonymous No.2458125]

Fuck philosophy.

I am guided by myself, and what stirs in my gut. My morals and ethics are made by what I have seen, felt, done and had done to me. They will evolve as I grow, am wounded and healed, harden and soften. Right and wrong exist, and belong to the individual, though they are never absolute.

I don't need a name, a term or a school of thought to dictate these things for me.

You should trust more in your individual experience, and the power of your instincts to define your code of ethics. Not another man's, regardless of how interesting his own experience might be.

[Anonymous No.2458130]

>>2458103

"Writing of his time in Sils-Maria, where he rented a "resin-scented, pine-panelled" room above the Alpine village's only grocer's, Cate recounts how, after rising while the dawn sky was still grey, Nietzsche would spend each day walking until 11am. After a short break, he would walk again, for another two hours, through the nearby forest or to Lake Sils, jotting down his thoughts in a notebook as he went along. After a late lunch of beefsteak and an "unbelievable" quantity of fruit, he would set out again on an even longer walk - "dressed in a long and somewhat threadbare brown jacket, and armed as usual with notebook, pencil and a large grey-green parasol to shade his eyes" - that sometimes took him as far as a mountain glacier. "Returning 'home' between four and five o'clock, he would immediately get back to work, sustaining himself on biscuits, peasant bread, honey (sent from Naumburg), fruit and pots of tea he brewed for himself in the little upstairs 'dining room' next to his bedroom, until, worn out, he snuffed out his candle and went to bed around 11pm."

>Nietzsche's daily routine allday erryday
>not beyond human
>pick none and gtfo

[Anonymous No.2458136]

>>2458113

what? uh......... Heidegger is firmly in the Continental tradition. he's more popular with post-structuralist, post-modernist types for the most part, which would utterly disgust him. (he hated being associated with Existentialism, for example.)

Rorty argues, rightly, that Heidegger's early phase is rather similar to Wittgenstein's latter phase: people are social animals, and society has a fairly substantial influence over us.

Heidegger's later phase, and Wittgenstein's early phase, are also rather similar: human beings only really have access to the world through language, which is more or less autonomous from us. it's independent and doesn't need humans to regulate it.

this should be too surprising, given that Husserl and Frege were colleagues. Husserl is linked to Heidegger, and Frege to Wittgenstein. both grew up in the German speaking world, so they would have had similar influences.

Wittgenstein, however, associated with the Logical Positivists, who were more affluent and located in Vienna. Heidegger was living within the academic context, actually studying traditional philosophy. it's interesting how their trains of thought intersect, nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.2458137]

Being speaks through me hurr hurr watch me kill jews while I look at my garden by the side of the Black Forest, LOOK AT MY GARDEN'S ESSENCE
LOOK AT IT


TECHNOLOGY KILLED IT

FUCK TECHNOLOGY

CRAFT IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY OF UNVEILING- TECHNIQUE IS A DECAY

HURR HURR

[Anonymous No.2458140]

>>2458130
>That pro life

Uber.

[Anonymous No.2458151]

>>2458125
>I don't need a name, a term or a school of thought to dictate these things for me.

Wow, I've never heard that before. You must be pretty unique.

[Anonymous No.2458158]

>>2458125
>individual experience

Isn't individual.

[Anonymous No.2458163]

>>2458137
>HURR HURR

[Anonymous No.2458167]

>>2458136
Hold up.

Since Wittgenstein said something about everything having some truth, but not being the truth. How would he (or even Heidegger) argue that their thought it isn't some truth instead of the truth?

[Anonymous No.2458173]

>>2458086

Alternatively you could be an drifter who steals books from libraries and squats his way across Canada and the US (or Europem wherever).

[Anonymous No.2458175]

>>2458125
>fuck philosophy
>proceeds to share his philosophy of life
>which is some sort of half-assed egoism
>which he would've known if he had read philosophy

Okay, buddy.

[Anonymous No.2458185]

>>2458173
You just made me lol more than you intended.

[Anonymous No.2458186]

>>2458167
That's kind of the whole deal of all of Wittgensteins work. Tracitus is all about how we often can't talk about truths or reality in a book trying to talk about truths or reality.

[Anonymous No.2458192]

Lets stop this philosophy stuff, it's all dogshit and ridiculously pretentious.

[Anonymous No.2458197]

>>2458136
>Wittgenstein, however, associated with the Logical Positivists
It would be more correct to say they associated with him. Witt didn't much care for logical positivism itself, though he is a major influence on it, and arguably his criticism of it forms some of his work.

[Anonymous No.2458198]

>>2458192
Let's stop reading while we're add it. And destroy our computers lest we accidentally learn something. Goddamn primitivist.

[Anonymous No.2458202]

>>2458186
So what would you rather read? Late Era, Early Era, or somewhere between both?

[Anonymous No.2458220]

Philosophical Investigations>Tractatus

[Anonymous No.2458224]

>>2458198
>learning something
>philosophy

[Anonymous No.2458236]

>>2458224
>stumped by Plato's cave

[Anonymous No.2458242]

>>2458236
>Stumped by Plato

Everyone from him until 1927.

[Anonymous No.2458250]

>>2458236
Still want that complete works of Plato which is like 2000 pages.

[Anonymous No.2458264]

>>2458220
tru dat

[‮ suomynonA‪‪‪‮‪‪‬‬‬‬‬ No.2458268]

>>2458202
That's not how it works anon.

[Anonymous No.2458276]

>>2458268
That it's a phase thing? It's a simple proposition of inquiry.

[Anonymous No.2458295]

>>2458276
That you have to read one or the other. Both are good. What I don't get is the obsession with Wittgenstein maybe possibly having aspergers. To my mind, Schopenhauer would be a better candidate.

[Anonymous No.2458574]

>>2458197

he hung around them, is what i meant. he was friendly with most of them, but generally refused to discuss philosophy with them.

i just meant that Wittgenstein, as opposed to Heidegger or Popper, was hanging with a very affluent and scientific crowd.

Popper was a poor Jew, thought scientific. Heidegger was more "traditional European philosophy".

i agree with you.

[Anonymous No.2458925]

>>2458220

Philosophical Investigations <- Tractatus

fixed

[Anonymous No.2459768]

>>2458925
>PI exactly if TLP
fix'd