/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3428103]

Hi /lit/ could you suggest a good resource that breaks down Wittgenstein for the layman?

[Anonymous No.3428118]

Bruce.

[Anonymous No.3428123]

>>3428103
philosophical investigations

[Anonymous No.3428124]

>>3428103
your not going to get better than this for the same length
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ttgenstein/

[Anonymous No.3428196]

>>3428124

Looks like a good resource. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.3428212]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cbpLrxk

[Anonymous No.3428232]

A very short introduction

[Anonymous No.3428245]

sorry brah, you cant break it, gotta dive into it to get a full grasp.

[Anonymous No.3428259]

You may find this useful, OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgWFl-Xs4

[Anonymous No.3428266]

http://sqapo.com/wittgenstein.htm
http://www.philosophybro.com/2011//wittgensteins-on-certainty-summa.html

[Anonymous No.3428272]

http://roangelo.net/logwitt/

[Anonymous No.3428318]

Understanding the man will provide the key for his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3428335]

>>3428318
Is this a recommendation for the Ray Monk biography or Wittgenstein's Poker?

[Anonymous No.3428352]

>>3428335
i'd say rather to his (secret) notebooks and less known texts.

[Anonymous No.3428355]

>>3428335
Wittgenstein's Poker isn't a comprehensive breakdown of him; it's just a really drawn out story about he and Popper's argument.

[Anonymous No.3428362]

Man up and study the Tractatus until you understand it. The Tractatus Logico-philosophicus is the only Wittgenstein work worth studying anyway.

[Anonymous No.3428365]

>>3428362
>the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus is the only Wittgenstein work worth studying anyway.

>talking out of your ass
>2013

[Anonymous No.3428369]

>>3428362
you dont need to participate in every thread son. if you have no clue, just keep scrolling.

[Anonymous No.3428370]

>>3428365
>Tractatus rigorously analytic
>His other work is basically continental
>Being a continental plebe
>2013

[Anonymous No.3428382]

>>3428370
>limiting yourself to either analytic and continental and not studying both
you are the truest of all "plebes"

[Anonymous No.3428389]

>2013
>still using a dated random dichotomy

go get murdered by a student in a university corridor.

[Anonymous No.3428392]

>>3428370
>>2013
>>still using a dated random dichotomy
>go get murdered by a student in a university corridor.

[Anonymous No.3428399]

>>3428382
But continental philosophy killed philosophy as a whole.

[Anonymous No.3428419]

>>3428399
10/10

[Anonymous No.3428458]

>>3428245
My sides.
thank you forevermore.

[Anonymous No.3428466]

>>3428370
>thinking that you can dismiss the later work of a man you claim to respect simply because his writing style doesn't suit you.
>thinking that the entire purpose of the Investigations isn't to comment on, modify, debunk, and overall respond, to the position advocated in the Tractatus.
>giving a damn about that fucking line that's been dead for decades in the minds of anyone but the less competent among the "analytics" and "continentals".
>not giving a logician of towering significance time to tease out difficult ideas before screaming "tl;dr"

You sir, are everything wrong with modern philosophy. all of it. You're worse than the Derridians.

[Anonymous No.3428484]

>1 The world is everything that is the case.
>1.1 The world is the totality of farts, not of things.
>1.11 The world is determined by the farts, and by these being all the farts.
>1.12 For the totality of farts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.
>1.13 The farts in logical space are the world.
>1.2 The world divides into farts.
>1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same.
>2 What is the case, the fart, is the existence of atomic farts.
>2.01 An atomic fart is a combination of objects (entities, things).
>2.011 It is essential to a thing that it can be a constituent part of an atomic fart.
>2.012 In logic nothing is accidental: if a thing can occur in an atomic fart the possibility of that atomic fart must already be prejudged in the thing.
>2.0121 It would, so to speak, appear as an accident, when to a thing that could exist alone on its own account, subsequently a state of affairs could be made to fit. If things can occur in atomic farts, this possibility must already lie in them.

[Anonymous No.3428487]

>>3428484
Combine this with the latter half of chapter six, and chapter seven. and the earlier pages of the investigations (which are not hard to grasp, folks, come on.) and you're on your way to knowing him.

[Anonymous No.3428522]

having spoken to professors and graduate students of philosophy, /lit/ severely overdraws the line between analytic and continental. in the words of one grad student, "everyone in the discipline does philosophy, they just work on different problems"

plus, it always tickled me to see the criticism of "continental" philosophy as dense, impenetrable language expounding on topics no one cares about. have you guys actually read any of the so-called analytical philosophy you put on a pedestal? it's just as "impenetrable". pic related, it's russell's principia mathematica. also, instead of, say, power, analytics explore questions that could easily be written off as the senseless pondering of stoned campers staring at a campfire.

"Hey, hey bro... Dude. What if, like, there were these things that looked human and you could like, interact with them and you thought they were human, but they were actually zombies or robots! Would they still be human?"

this is basically the concept of p-zombies

dividing the discipline of philosophy into analytic/continental and then claiming that continentals are a stain on the humanities is shallow, politically motivated and does nothing except reward the claimant. it's a great big patting of one's own back.

[Anonymous No.3428527]

>>3428466
You know Derrida is a big reason why continental philosophy is so shit and why analytic philosophy is better, right?

Wittgenstein is respected among analytic philosophers because he advocated creating a language soley for analyzing philosophy, among a few other things (formalism into logical positivism, etc). He didn't know some years letter a French asshole with ridiculous hair was going to co-opt his philosophy and completely cheapen and shit all over it in the process.

[Anonymous No.3428530]

>>3428335

Kanterian
Schulte

[Anonymous No.3428533]

>>3428522
I find PM to be much more readable than any of Derrida's sophistry, especially pic related.

[Anonymous No.3428540]

>>3428527
>he advocated creating a language soley for analyzing philosophy

the man had explictly stated that this interpretation is wrong. the logical positivists were autists who didn't understand his book.

when he lectured them he initially didn't even bother talking about logic. once he even decided to recite poems with his back turned to the group.

[Anonymous No.3428546]

>>3428522
I'm not much into philosophy, what the fuck Russel.

[Anonymous No.3428549]

>>3428540
Wittgenstein got buttfrustrated as fuck when people didn't understand his nonsense and you call his deriders autistic? Too funny.

[Anonymous No.3428553]

>>3428533
i'll concede derrida. he purposefully wrote obtusely

[Anonymous No.3428556]

>>3428549
not the guy you're replying to, but "logical positivists" would imply that they are wittgenstein fanboys, not deriders

[Anonymous No.3428561]

>>3428522
The real criticism about the denseness in continental philosophy is that no philosopher or student of it can adequately elucidate upon that denseness to outsiders in a language that is clear and easily definable. When asked to explain their philosophy in monosyllables, continentals often take up a "NO U" attitude and start casting denunciations and aspersions.

There are plenty of lucid works out there that easily describe the work of Russel in laymen terms. There are none that describe the work of Derrida in laymen terms. Why? Because the work of all postmodern hacks amounts to nothing but sophistry.

[Anonymous No.3428566]

>>3428549
> his deriders

You mean his loyal followers. The Vienna Circle worshiped him as god. They even put up with his lectures on poetry and whatever other flavor of the week topics he wanted to talk about until he regained an interest in logic.

[Anonymous No.3428570]

>>3428556
Evidently not real fanboys, since they apparently misunderstood his book due to autism, or some other 4chan mental disorder buzzword.

[Anonymous No.3428578]

>>3428561
Just read derrida and heidegger for yourself.

[Anonymous No.3428581]

>>3428561
>implying for something to be true it needs to be dumbed down to pleb levels

You sound American.

[Anonymous No.3428583]

>>3428578
Why read poor footnotes to Nietzsche when you can just read Nietzsche.

Besides, Derrida is utterly unreadable. It's not a matter of "2deep4u" either. His "prose" is total dildos.

[Anonymous No.3428596]

>>3428583

Heidegger does the same work was wittgenstein but from a theoretical point of view. They both (even in LW's earlier work) are calling for a return to life in order to do philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3428601]

>>3428581
That wasn't the implication. And using someone's supposed place of birth (pro-tip: it's not America) as an excuse to cast an ad hominem is just about the height of stupidity.

If you have a point or a truism to make, then make it. Don't bury it underneath layer upon layer of obscurantism.

[Anonymous No.3428624]

>>3428601

it's poetry. anyone who has seriously studied wittgenstein must understand that his style hides as much as it reveals. the style is as important to his work as the content.

the same is said for heidegger, and russell, and derrida. that you think the principia can be truly understood in laymen's terms is alarming.

[Anonymous No.3428630]

>>3428561
i actually found these articles to be good explanations. as you say, "lucid." however, i read a lot of philosophy and other stuff from the humanities in my free time, so i may be taking some vocabulary for granted.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rrida/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida/

as a note, i've found that whenever some does give a "one-sentence summary a layman can understand" of any philosopher, the reaction is always something like, "well, that's not original" or "that's not saying anything new", "that's just obvious common sense", etc.

the trouble is you lose detail for the sake of efficiency. this would involve reducing even the most canonical philosophers to "footnotes of plato" as it is usually said. so in this sense, it is not a mark on continentals in particular.

[Anonymous No.3428637]

>>3428601
Nice autism you got there. Not all ad hominems are fallacious you philosophy-pleb.

Americans are known for their egalitarian nonsense, that if the average idiot can't understand something, it should be rejected. It's no coincidence that the only philosophy to come out of america is pragmatism.

inb4 youre canadian or from some other shitty anglo country.

[Anonymous No.3428632]

>>3428561
yes it can, it has been done. It's been done so many times even here on /lit/

Don't lie anon.

[Anonymous No.3428640]

>>3428596
>calling for a return to life in order to do philosophy

i've actually found this to be a striking feature of almost most philosophers i read secondary sources about. ie: "so and so's last lectures called for..."

has anyone picked up on this theme and developed it more fully?

[Anonymous No.3428645]

>>3428624
Calling Derrida & Heidegger "poets" is a direct insult Dante, Yeats, Blake & Whitman.

Derrida in particular is no where near worthy enough to be listed among those names. Just stop it already.

[Anonymous No.3428651]

>>3428583
But I've read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.3428654]

>>3428637
>Not all ad hominems are fallacious
In this case it clearly was. I'm not American.

>The only philosophy to come out of america is pragmatism
Well, now that I know you're another Europoor troll I can proceed with ignoring you. Good day.

[Anonymous No.3428657]

>>3428645
Heidegger isn't a poet in the aesthetic sense. He is poetic in that his style is organic, not rigid and systematic like Russell.

[Anonymous No.3428662]

>>3428632
I never seen one poststructuralism thread on /lit/ that wasn't one giant Continental circlejerk of obscurantism and sophistry. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.3428665]

>>3428654
>In this case it clearly was.

No it wasn't. It was relevant. Americans being dumb egalitarians is directly related to their need for things to be dumbed down for them.

[Anonymous No.3428675]

>>3428657
Stop co-opting flowery language to make your shit philosophy seem more interesting than it actually is.

At the end of the day, Derrida's philosophy is somewhere between boring-as-fuck and common sense. Hence why he had to dress it up in ostentatiousness and obscurantism.

[Anonymous No.3428685]

>>3428657

No, I mean he is a poet in the sense that the meaning of his text is heavily reliant on the way he expresses his ideas. Heidegger cannot be translated into non-philosophical language or even symbolic logic without losing the meaning of his text. In the same way Russel's major work can't be made into ordinary language without losing the kernel of the text.

[Anonymous No.3428693]

>>3428665
It was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one said anything about America or Americans until you did. You saw a dim opportunity to inject your crass views on America and its citizens and took advantage of it. At the end of the day, no one around here cares if you think "Americans are dumb." It's a hackneyed position to hold, particularly on this website.

Take it to /int/ if you feel so strongly about just how much better the place you didn't at all choose to be born in is than America or any other country. The rest of us will remain here discussing issues of pertinence.

[Anonymous No.3428697]

>>3428601
As they say, the style is part of the matter. Even wittgenstein says that the most important part of the tractatus is the unwritten one.

Second every clarification is a simplification. Generally the reason that analytics complain about continentals is because they use the language of german idealism and phenomenology. It's not a question of clarity, it's a question of not using those languages that they have a pavlovian association with the "bad guys" for carnap and russell. But if you take that away you miss the whole discussion they are having on those concepts. And no layman would understand problems in phenomenology,

Third layman's term get confusing. Excessive simplification becomes obscurity in its own way because leads to equivocation. When the analytics for example ask "why do we have empath for fictional character that do not exists?" continentals are very clear because they always refer, even through the use of certain keywords, to a certain psychology or ontology. But the analytics, wanting to commit themselves only to the problem at hand, muddle themselves in a word prison because they only think inside the box and refuse to go outside.What does empathy mean? And what is the ontological status of fictional beings? These are not clear questions and different people might have different intuitions. In a way this is the dishonest philosophy that demands us to shed our philosophical armor for the quest of clarity and then plays our simple intuitions against each other to concoct paradoxes that are not even there.

[Anonymous No.3428701]

>>3428693
You are autism incarnate.

[Anonymous No.3428712]

>>3428701
>Autism

Yet another hackneyed response, especially around here.

Do you ever get tired of being a victim of banality?

[Anonymous No.3428741]

>>3428662
One anon some time ago had a good thread "ask me about lacan" and he explained everything pretty well.

Anyway you can ask me a question about derrida if you want and I;ll answer in simple terms.

>>3428675
I hear that a lot but it's not true. It's pretty sophisticated. The whole problem comes from the fact that people like you ask for "babbys first derrida" and then they answer "see nothing of interest". Forgetting that:

1) It was a simplified version.
2) When Derrida was saying that stuff analytic philosophy was all over Carnap and Behaviorism. Do you remember when everyone was being a behaviorist and people were "yo dude chill, I'm not sure it's such a good idea" and the analytics were "durrr, we are being rational and manly"? Do you remember that time. That's what's gonna happen 50 years from now down the road.

[Anonymous No.3428744]

>>3428712
Do you ever get tired of sperging out whenever some one commits the 'sin' of a logical fallacy or in some way doesn't conform to your rigid and limited view of life? I mean, I guess it’s fun making fun of people because of your own insecurities, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than jerking off to pictures on facebook.

Don’t be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I’m pretty much perfect. I was captain of the football team, and starter on my basketball team. What sports do you play, other than “jack off to naked drawn Japanese people”? I also get straight A’s, and have a banging hot girlfriend (She just blew me; Shit was SO cash). You are all faggots who should just kill yourselves. Thanks for listening.

[Anonymous No.3428765]

I really think the kind of philosophy you like is determined by your personality. Analytic philosophy appeals to the kind of person who like order, straightness, logic and rigidity. Whereas continental appeals to people who see things as organic, wholistic, poetic.

So, it is the personality type labelled 'autistic' or sperglord that analytic appeals to.

[Anonymous No.3428771]

>>3428744

[Anonymous No.3428774]

>>3428771
>butthurt

[Anonymous No.3428788]

>>3428741
You'll never convince me anything Derrida espoused was anything other than sophistry. Sorry.

Case in point, listen to him spaghetti all over the place about how its "violent" to call animals "animals."

[Anonymous No.3428793]

>>3428788
Forgot link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NekI_Yi0A

[Anonymous No.3428801]

>>3428788
>sophistry
>bad

laughing_protagoras.jpg

[Anonymous No.3428800]

A reference for the rest of us

[Anonymous No.3428810]

>>3428800
>an_introduction_to_analytic_philophy.jpg

[Anonymous No.3428829]

>>3428788
Doesn't sound very rational to say that nothing can convince you. See you are just prejudiced, your attitude is not due to some reasoning.

>>3428793
I don't see how is that so surprisingly wrong.
He is doing a very fair observation that animals are very different and that by defining them just as animals is our first gesture to say they are not human. He is calling for a little more attention when we deal with them.

And yes it is violent: we eat and kill animals.

Of course I can agree that's not deep, but the whole documentary is not that deep. It's more about his person than his thought.And I believe it's a bad documentary.

[Anonymous No.3428857]

Ray Monk's got two good books on him: one's biography and the other is called How to Read Wittgenstein (or something like that).
A. C. Grayling also wrote the Very Short Introduction to Wittgenstein.

In addition, you may consider the relevant episode(s) of The Partially Examined Life as a useful secondary source when trying to get into Wittgenstein's works.

[Anonymous No.3428860]

>>3428765
In a certain way it's true. In another it's not. I think that analytic philosophy today has a big problem and a lot of people are steering away from it because of it (unfortunately they stare away in other fields, not only academic, living analytic phil. ever more powerful in the departments):

1) The University system pushes people to publish at high speeds and to do this they are pressured to follow what's fashionable at the moment on journals. It's the journals that dictate the agenda today.

2) Their stylistic preferences not only makes it so that no grand vision can emerge (thus today we should speak of analytic philosophies since they are hardly unified) but also that their production veers towards the conservative and the pseudoscientific. As Rorty said, analytic philosophy today is a system that rewards not the imaginative thinker but the hack.

I think that by the hack he meant something like what you mean by "autistic"

[Anonymous No.3428877]

>>3428801
Not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying Derrida was the Andy Kaufman of philosophy and it's bad to call a performance artist a philosopher, let alone one worthy of any sort of merit.

[Anonymous No.3428909]

>>3428877
With all your talking of "honesty" and "rigor" whenever people like you start talking about continentals you suddenly become frauds.

Because the whole point of attacking them is not that you disagree with them, it's that you don't want to read them because you are lazy and think that you are doing the most important work now.

[Anonymous No.3428929]

>>3428909
And yet every attack on the deriders of continental philosophy comes in the form of personal attacks and denunciations. It must be because the whole point of attacking them is not that you disagree with them either, yes?

[Anonymous No.3428948]

>>3428522
well, the "problem" is that addition has not been defined...
He just tells us what we would be able to conclude if it were, namely 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.3428953]

>>3428877
>implying philosophy is can dtermine truth
>implying its not all just opinion

[Anonymous No.3428979]

>>3428522
>having spoken to professors and graduate students of philosophy, /lit/ severely overdraws the line between analytic and continental. in the words of one grad student, "everyone in the discipline does philosophy, they just work on different problems"
Well, first of all you need to get around more. There are plenty of prominent analytic philosophers, for example, that describe the continental "tradition" as being closer to history of philosophy than to philosophy. And in some cases they're kinda right I guess. And if you go to where continental philosophy is allegedly practised (continental Europe in case you're not keeping up), most people don't know what you're talking about: there is no analytic/continental distinction. It's very much an Anglo idea, it's often a chimera, and even where it's used nobody actually follows it anyway unless they've got some weird agenda or are organising a course syllabus.

[Anonymous No.3428981]

>>3428953
>>implying its not all just opinion
Is that the truth you've determined, or an opinion?

[Anonymous No.3428991]

I think people should more often remind themselves that philosophy is just a means to an end.

[Anonymous No.3428994]

>>3428991
>is just a means to an end
That's a funny way of writing "is valuable in itself".

[Anonymous No.3429000]

>>3428981
It's true.

in my opinion

[Anonymous No.3429005]

>>3428994
From where does its inherent value come?

[Anonymous No.3429013]

>>3429005
God. You knew this was going to be the answer so why did you even look?

[Anonymous No.3429014]

>>3429005
Shhhh... You mustn't ask these questions. Philosophy itself is intrinsic value. Just like being conscious and rational is intrinsic value.

[Anonymous No.3429027]

>>3429005
>From where does its inherent value come?
The thing itself. INHERENT. Look it up.

[Anonymous No.3429032]

>>3429014
But... I like sleeping.

[Anonymous No.3429037]

>>3429005

>from where
>from where
>from where

god save me from this era of descriptivist degenerates and take me back to that forgotten time in which the civilized man said "whence"

[Anonymous No.3429039]

>>3429027
Says who? Why is it inherently valuable?

[Anonymous No.3429045]

>>3429032
Then I guess it becomes morally allowed to kill you while you sleep.

[Anonymous No.3429048]

>>3429032
Then I guess it becomes morally allowed to kill you while you sleep since while sleeping you lose inherent value.

[Anonymous No.3429052]

>>3429039
Who says it isn't?

[Anonymous No.3429058]

>>3429048
Okay... I guess that's a pretty rational approach to killing someone as well...

[Anonymous No.3429060]

>>3429052
>god exists! you can't prove he doesn't!

[Anonymous No.3429063]

gizoogle.com

[Anonymous No.3429065]

>>3429060
This is why I like living in northern Europe. Nobody sees any point in bringing up atheism, because nobody believes in divine power.

[Anonymous No.3429069]

>>3429052
I do. Philosophy is not inherently valuable.

[Anonymous No.3429077]

>>3429065
Are you retarded? My point was, your comment was like those people who that.
"Philosophy is inherently valuable! You can't prove its not"

Are you the same autistic faggot who's been posting the whole time?

[Anonymous No.3429078]

>>3429060
Yeah, it's a lot like that. You've just got to get used to looking at things from different perspectives and there not being any definite true/false or right/wrong answer. Maybe it's a means to an end, maybe it's an end in itself, maybe it's something else entirely like the Nietzschean bridge, and maybe it can be all these things or none of these things all at the same time.

[Anonymous No.3429081]

>>3429077
*who say that

[Anonymous No.3429088]

>>3429077
Oh boy, this guy. I can smell the teenage hormones boiling over.

[Anonymous No.3429093]

>>3429069
>Philosophy is not inherently valuable

[Anonymous No.3429095]

>>3429077
No, I am the guy who posted >>3428991
I merely commented on the fact that some people seemingly can't resist the urge to make it about gods and religion the first opportunity they get, and how I, raised in an environment where nobody feel a need to ever bring that up, feel fortunate to be able to have discussions with people, face to face, without having to address it. Is this somehow problematic?

[Anonymous No.3429098]

>>3429095
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3429100]

>>3429088
Try again.

[Anonymous No.3429102]

>>3429095
Apparently it makes you a "retarded" "autistic faggot" in some eyes, I'm not sure why though.

[Anonymous No.3429109]

>>3429098
Okay...

[Anonymous No.3429112]

>>3429102
Not picking up on a simple analogy and going off on a rant about the enlightened atheism of northern european countries... Sounds autistic.

[Anonymous No.3429117]

>>3428527
Honestly, you just sound like somebody who is only familiar with the names you mention through browsing threads on this board. Nothing you said in this post is significant or worth mentioning, it's just a rephrasing of things that people absent-mindedly post here.

[Anonymous No.3429120]

Derail achieved.

Philosophy is the consequence of the existence of systems, and the presence of desire... and the relationshps between the two.

"Inherent value" only has significance with regard to the will imposed.

"Philosophy has no inherent value" is a meaningless, or (to more accurately Wittgen-ize it) a phrase with no clearly defined use in any language game beyond to divert the language game away from certain concept-word relationships.... phrase.


Get out.

[Anonymous No.3429124]

>>3429120
Wittgenstein threads never fare well. You new around here?

[Anonymous No.3429126]

>>3429112
I did pick up on that simple analogy. It was the analogy I ranted against for two whole sentences.

[Anonymous No.3429130]

>>3428561
This is absolute bullshit. I constantly ask for examples of texts or concepts that people need explained, but nobody responds because they haven't actually read the books.

[Anonymous No.3429132]

>>3429117

he's also wrong about wittgenstein, showing that he's never actually studied him

[Anonymous No.3429133]

>>3428640
I would guess it's tied to modernism and the whole "Art is the saviour of humanity" mindset. Maybe try Terry Eagleton?

[Anonymous No.3429135]

>>3429124
Yeah actually.
recently immigrated somewhat from /mlp/
I suppose I can see why though. The areas that discourse about something as broadly defined as "Wittgenstein's work" and the places it touch on... allow for all manner of tangents I almost said pointless ones, but wouldn't that be funny.

[Anonymous No.3429137]

>>3429130
You mean no one is clamoring to ask some anonymous fuckhead on an awful website for scholarly clarification of obscure philosophical concepts? Well color me surprised. You're right, it must be bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3429142]

>>3429117
>>3429132
More denunciations with zero clarification or corrections offered. You're still only proving my point here, bud.

[Anonymous No.3429145]

>>3429142
Fuck you you anonymous fuckhead.

[Anonymous No.3429149]

>>3429142
>with zero clarification or corrections offered
The post above is total dildos, it'd be like asking for clarification and corrections on an essay from one of those essay generator things.

[Anonymous No.3429152]

>>3429137
zomg you're so cynical and detached will u marry me?

[Anonymous No.3429154]

>>3429149
Prove it's total dildos, please.

>>3429145
Why so angry?

[Anonymous No.3429161]

>>3429154
Please clarify and correct:
From C1, it follows that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not subject to an important distinction in language use. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that a descriptively adequate grammar appears to correlate rather closely with a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. With this clarification, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is, apparently, determined by the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). Furthermore, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not quite equivalent to the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). It must be emphasized, once again, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is to be regarded as the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

[Anonymous No.3429164]

>>3429142
You haven't made any points.

[Anonymous No.3429167]

>>3429161
tldr

[Anonymous No.3429170]

>>3429167
>tldr
>on /lit/
>>>/tg/

[Anonymous No.3429172]

http://ebookee.org/Introducing-Witenstein-New-Ed_215788.html

Here's a good introduction to Wittgenstein. It covers his life, Tractatus, and Investigations -- through illustrated means; but, that doesn't detract from it.

[Anonymous No.3429173]

>>3429161
To characterize a linguistic level L, this selectionally introduced contextual feature delimits the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Notice, incidentally, that the notion of level of grammaticalness does not affect the structure of the levels of acceptability from fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g.(98d)). Suppose, for instance, that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds appears to correlate rather closely with an important distinction in language use. Presumably, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not quite equivalent to the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. We have already seen that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction does not readily tolerate the strong generative capacity of the theory.

[Anonymous No.3429178]

>>3429164
Again, more denunciations with zero proofs provided.

[Anonymous No.3429179]

>>3429161
>>3429173
It must be emphasized, once again, that the notion of level of grammaticalness does not affect the structure of nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Presumably, any associated supporting element is not quite equivalent to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. To characterize a linguistic level L, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction delimits a descriptive fact. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, a descriptively adequate grammar is necessary to impose an interpretation on an abstract underlying order. On the other hand, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition cannot be arbitrary in a parasitic gap construction.

[Anonymous No.3429181]

>>3429178
Proof of what? You're arguing rather cryptically at the moment.

[Anonymous No.3429187]

>>3429181
There is no real argument going on. You said I sound like someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. I asked you clarify why. You responded in typical Continental fashion with "no u lel" and other crass denunciations. This is what happens when you learn forms of argumentation (or lack there of) from a clown like Derrida.

[Anonymous No.3429206]

>>3429187
>I asked you clarify why

Where did you ask that?

[Anonymous No.3429210]

>>3429187
>You responded in typical Continental fashion
That got a chuckle. Is this like your version of "He smiled most jewishly"?

[Anonymous No.3429220]

>>3429206
I pointed out that you didn't clarify why you came to the conclusion that you did in this post :>>3429117

Me pointing out your baseless denunciation was an invitation for you to clarify it and prove me wrong. Instead you just slung more denunciations, because that's all you Derrida fanboys can do.

[Anonymous No.3429223]

>>3429210
I'm not sure, how would one smile "jewishly"?

[Anonymous No.3429224]

>>3429223
by lurking more

[Anonymous No.3429229]

>>3429224
Oh, so you mean smiling like the super epic funney "happy merchant" meme lel

Sorry, I don't lurk /pol/. I can think of plenty other more fun ways to annihilate my brain cells.

[Anonymous No.3429240]

>>3429229
It's from an ironic copypasta that's posted all over the place.

[Anonymous No.3429292]

>>3429223
Your autism is insufferable.

[Anonymous No.3429297]

>>3429179
tldr

[Anonymous No.3429294]

>>3429173
tldr

[Anonymous No.3429300]

>>3429297
>>3429294
That's the point. Google Chomsky bot pls.

[Anonymous No.3430831]

>wittgenstein thread derails into derrida

why.gif

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3430862]

>>3430831

late witty and derrida have much in common

[Anonymous No.3432060]

>>3430862
Sure you're not confusing having common ground for outright theft & misappropriation of ideas?

[Anonymous No.3432073]

>>3430862
Only a superficial plebe reading

Don't taint Wittgenstein with your french filth

[Anonymous No.3432081]

>>3430862
He's got more in common with Foucault: his weakness for young men.