[ 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: 144 KB, 1255x505, 1364853930308.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3910193 No.3910193 [Reply] [Original]

Is philosophy just a lot of clever word games?

>> No.3910198

That's what Wittgenstein said. Read his Tracts of Philosophy. But it basically boils down to "these people are just fucking confused about the meanings of words". Basically we should have linguistics departments in universities to do their thing, let everyone else worry about practical matters.

>> No.3910195

If you knew what a *language game was, you would realize that all human discourse is a language game by definition

>> No.3910203

Philosophy is an intentional looking-glass experience.

>> No.3910204

>>3910195
So, the answer is yes.

>> No.3910209

Is science just a lot of clever data games?

>> No.3910239

>>3910209

Science is also "just" a language game

>> No.3910238

In his own writings[52] Wittgenstein frequently referred to himself as Jewish. For example, while berating himself for being a "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" thinker, he attributed this to his own Jewish sense of identity, writing: "The saint is the only Jewish genius. Even the greatest Jewish thinker is no more than talented. (Myself for instance)."[53] While Wittgenstein would later claim that "[m]y thoughts are 100% Hebraic",[54] Philosopher Hans Sluga has argued, that Wittgenstein's Judaism "was a self-doubting Judaism, which had always the possibility of collapsing into a destructive self-hatred (as it did in Weininger's case) but which also held an immense promise of innovation and genius."[55]

Sexuality and relationship with David Pinsent[edit]
Wittgenstein later confessed that, as a teenager in Vienna, he had had an affair with a woman.[74] Wittgenstein is also widely regarded to have fallen in love with at least three men: David Hume Pinsent in 1912, Francis Skinner in 1930, and Ben Richards in the late 1940s.[75] Additionally, in the 1920s Wittgenstein became infatuated with a young Swiss woman, Marguerite Respinger, modelling a sculpture of her and proposing marriage, albeit on condition that they did not have children.[76]
-woops,
>>3910209
yes

>> No.3910240

I don't see how the whole language-game thing doesn't also simultaneously prove the whole post-modernist relativism thing

>> No.3910247

>>3910240
Of course it does.

>> No.3910248

>>3910240
Have you looked up what a language game is? It's a lot closer to structuralism, honestly

>> No.3910256

In fact, it's kind of like a mixture of structuralism and pragmatism, if you think about it

>> No.3910263

>>3910248
so what then "post-structuralism" is just an attempt to "deconstruct" the pre-existing axioms or whatever?

>> No.3910269

>>3910263
No. I think you should learn what all these words mean before you use them.

>> No.3910276

>>3910256
And santorum is a mixture of faeces and semen.

>> No.3910294

Is math just a bunch of clever abstraction games?

>> No.3910299

>>3910269
Post-structuralism is a response to structuralism. Structuralism is an intellectual movement developed in Europe from the early to mid-20th century. It argued that human culture may be understood by means of a structure—modeled on language (i.e., structural linguistics)—that differs from concrete reality and from abstract ideas—a "third order" that mediates between the two.[4] Post-structuralist authors all present different critiques of structuralism, but common themes include the rejection of the self-sufficiency of the structures that structuralism posits and an interrogation of the binary oppositions that constitute those structures.[5] Writers whose work is often characterised as post-structuralist include Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler, Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillard, and Julia Kristeva, although many theorists who have been called "post-structuralist" have rejected the label.[6]

but its a blanket term?
I guess my reading (albeit limited) of Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard and Lacan has been such

>> No.3910300

>>3910294
There's no more abstraction in mathematics than there is in language otherwise

>> No.3910312

>>3910299
I'll admit that I only dismissed your post because you used 'deconstruct' (the meaningless verb form of 'deconstruction'), but axiomatics is completely irrelevant to the discussion anyway

>> No.3910314

If philosophy is just a lot of clever word games then so is everything else.

>> No.3910333

>>3910312
language-structures?
to the semiotic analysis known as déconstruction
better Herr Wittgenstein?

>> No.3910337

>>3910333
*to use
you know what i mean
change the co-ordinates

>> No.3910409

Words encapsulate philosophical ideas and are often used as tools of philosophers.

Philosophy itself is the intentional activity of man's self awareness.

>> No.3910426

Philosophy is a lot of semantics; so, yes.

>> No.3910462

>>3910193
It was once not but is now. Thank the French.

>> No.3910494

All philosophy is the critique of language.

>> No.3911575

This isn't what Wittgenstein thought.

>> No.3911584

>Is philosophy just a lot of clever word games?
Exactly. Just like your beloved science, OP.

>> No.3911594

>>3911575
The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words "block", "pillar" "slab", "beam". A calls them out; — B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. Conceive this as a complete primitive language. (PI 2.)[3]

Do the analytic philosophers just think that the continental ones took this to far (like that it doesn't logically follow that there is an overarching superstructure that eventually gets built) and therefore post-structuralists are deconstructing (because its a verb if i say it is William) something that never existed to begin with

I've never understood how or why there was a dichotomy..?

>> No.3911600

>>3911594
I guess my question is,
in analytic philosophy (regarding language) do you just always have the blocks?

>> No.3911631

ITT: teenagers misrepresenting Wittgenstein.

Also, using the term "language game" pejoratively implies your IQ is under 90.

>> No.3911639

>>3911631
why don'tcha educate the masses then m80?

>> No.3911653

>>3911631
Ah, yes, magically, the second the term "language game" is dropped, a corresponding report of an IQ test illustrating an exact score of 90 is necessarily and universally generated for everyone to see!

>> No.3911660 [DELETED] 
File: 793 KB, 360x203, euph.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3911660

>modern philosophy
>semantic buttpained faggots with autism trying to get tenure and justify their stupid kikey marxist existence

two

>> No.3911667

>>3911660
>modern science
>semantic buttpained faggots with autism trying to get tenure and justify their stupid kikey instrumentalist existence

three

>> No.3911669

>>3911660
we wear bowler caps now,
anyways... >>>>>/pol/
you know what to do

>> No.3911672

>>3910193
Sometimes.
Other times it is critically important.

>> No.3911681

>>3911660

>fedora
>that which is mostly associated with atheist sciencefags

the irony

>> No.3911712

yes, even nietzsche said it

>> No.3911722

>>3910193


well i dont know op, if its all simply a semantic exercise, how is it that we ultimately decide to do a given thing instead of any other possible thing?

>> No.3911741

Philosophy is a word game that made me hate myself even more, but I can't go back to normal philosophy that the common man enjoys, that one also makes me hate myself.

>> No.3911763

>>3911660
>>>/pol/
get the fuck out

>> No.3911865

The buddhists have known this for centuries. Also the buddhists think that Derrida was the most important philosopher on the subject, specifically his concept of differance.

>> No.3911882

>>3911722
...like we always do?