[ 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: 155 KB, 1024x771, wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4189932 No.4189932[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

if u r so smrat... then why is there something rather than nothing?

>> No.4189949

If there is no God, then how does gravity?

>> No.4189953

"if u r so smrat... then why is there something rather than nothing?" - Wittgenstein in an exchange with Bertrand Russell

>> No.4189955

>>4189953
"Someone, give this youg man a PhD!" - Russell response

>> No.4189982

Don’t trust me, I’m a total dickface liar.
Don’t listen to me, I’m a hard-dicked, fuckface lying cheat coward liar.
I’m a liar.
Doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo, doo-doo on you.
Doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo, doo-doo on you.
Don’t make love to any part of me.
My dick tells lies, just like my son of a bitch face.
Don’t undress in my house.
My house is a terrible camera, a camera, with fangs and shit.
Sh-doobie, uh uh, sh-doobie sh-could, sh-doobie.
Don’t eat that roast on my table, you fucked up on that table.
Don’t tell me my whistling is good
whistling’s dead
and we both know that.
I’m alone in these woods that we call life.
You’re a perfect wife for a dead man.
And that’s not me.
If you are still there in dark
don’t reach out to feel my heart.
You will only mush your perfect phlanges
into my demon turd of the soul.
Your hand would go into my satanic cheeseburger,
A.K.A. my heart’s vagina.

-- Emily Dickinson

>> No.4189997

It is something less than heaven
To be quoted Thesis 1.7
Every time I make an advance;
If the world is all that the case is
That's a pretty discouraging basis
On which to pursue
Any sort of romance.
I've got a proposition for you;
Logical, positive and brief.
And at least it could serve as a kind of comic relief:
[Refrain]
Let P equal me,
With my heart in command;
Let Q equal you
With Tractatus in hand;
And R could stand for a lifetime of love,
Filled with music to fondle and purr to.
We'll define love as anything lovely you'd care to infer to.
On the right, put that bright,
Hypothetical case;
On the left, our uncleft,
Parenthetical chase.
And that horseshoe there in the middle
Could be lucky; we've nothing to lose,
If in these parentheses
We just mind our little P's
And Q's.
[Reply]
If P thinks of me
As a girl hard to make,
Then Q wishes you
Would go jump in the lake.
For R is a meaningless concept,
Having nothing to do with pleasure:
I prefer the hard and tangible things I can measure.
Man, you chase in the face
Of impossible odds;
I'm a lass in the class
Of unbossable broads.
If you'll promise no more sticky phrases,
Half a mo while I kick off my shoes.
There are birds, there are bees,
And to hell with all your P's
And Q's.

>> No.4190012

>>4189949
If God is like superbenevolent, then why does His embassy on earth, the Catholic church, leave no child's behind unmolested?

If God is omnipotent then can He break-dance? If not, then he is not omnipotent; if He can, then He is a silly goose.

If God is omnipresent, then he must also be in every toilet around the world, from which it logically follows that He gets shit on daily millions of times by millions of people; and if He is present in the mouths and vaginas of women, then it follows that he cheese-caked gentile foreskin thrust into His face daily.

If God is omniscient, then he would've known that Eve would act just like a woman and screw a good thing up. If He set up his little diorama of two humans and more animals with the foreknowledge that it would fail, then He has no right to be indignant and should go fuck himself.

rekt

>> No.4190031

*taps ur head* i think u will find there is, indeed, nothing in here

#topdollart-shirtwetcunt

>> No.4190038

Oh, this spoiled child abuser again.

>> No.4190040
File: 72 KB, 500x641, Frank Ramsey 1_final_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4190040

Wish I was as cool as Ramsey

>> No.4190055

why the why?

>> No.4190075

Even in physics, there is no such thing as nothing.

>> No.4190084

>>4190075
Accidentally profound.

If there is no nothing, then there is no thing which is nothing. Which is exactly what nothing is. No-thing.

Nothing changes.

>> No.4190109

>>4190084
and thus, we see the limitations of language.
Wittgenstein: 1
We: 0

>> No.4190154

>>4190109
3.0321 Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot.

>> No.4190186

>>4190084
I don't need to be rigorous and exact if you already understand what I mean.

>> No.4190272

>implying theres something

>> No.4190296

6.44

>> No.4190325

>>4189953
Didn't Wittgenstein famously show that the question itself makes no sense?

>> No.4190329

>>4190325
He was wrong.

>> No.4190334

Wittgenstein was wrong about pretty much everything.

>> No.4190338

>>4190334
It's the journey that matters, my friend. It's the journey that matters.

>> No.4190342

">implying" - Sartre

>> No.4190344

>>4189932
because there had to be

#swordsdrawn #sparksflying

>> No.4190739

>>4189932
>implying there are whys

>> No.4190741

>>4190334
And admitted it in the book where he was right about pretty much everything.

>> No.4190753

>>4190084

So, nothing = the absence of anything?

>> No.4190759

>>4190753
There's no such thing as the absence of anything.

>> No.4190764

>>4190741
Which one?

>> No.4190773

>>4190764
Confessions of a child beater: I regret nothing

>> No.4190788

>>4190764
Philosophical Investigations, obviously.

>> No.4190793

>>4190759

That sounds like my definition of nothing

>> No.4190795

>>4190329
How?

>> No.4190827

>>4190793
But it's a useless word, such as non-existence. It doesn't apply to anything and only serves to create a faulty dichotomy that people can get tangled up in.

>> No.4190856

>>4190827

I think it applies to the absence of something, like when you open a box and find nothing inside, it doesn't mean literal nothing, I understand it's not possible to be a literal nothing, but if you're expecting to see, for example, garbage, a cat, maybe old electronics; anything, and don't find it, you find the absence of all of the things that can occupy this space.

I don't like the word either, there are some pretty stupid words out there used in the most idiotic ways, remember the origin of "like", and how it became, like, something like this. That's also horrific, but no regardless of how much I wished they didn't exist, they do.

>> No.4190983 [DELETED] 

But there is nothing. Our view on something is just anthropocentric phenomenon, which is in fact just instinctive self-constructed delusion for the matter of cognitive continuity.

>> No.4190989

can nothing exist? and can it be the most innocent thing?

>> No.4190994

>>4190989
No
Yes

>> No.4190996

>>4189932
But there is nothing. Our view on something is just anthropocentric phenomenon, which is in fact just instinctive self-constructed delusion for the matter of cognitive continuity.

>> No.4191002

Why is Wittgenstein so big in murrica?

>> No.4191020

>>4189932
>implying nothing can be
>implying without the option to not be, there ever was
>implying there is

>> No.4191026

because if there's nothing, then there are no laws that say that there cannot be something, so nothing is self-negating

>> No.4191027

>>4191026
>nothing is self-negating
No, it is not, because it is not.

>> No.4191032

>>4190996
Is there any reason to believe that other than the fact that you assert it?

>> No.4191048

>>4191027
>No, it is not, because it is not.
right. something is, because the nothing is not.

>> No.4191053

>>4191032
So you want to know, or you want to belive?

>> No.4191057

>>4190996
>But there is nothing.
that's interesting because it appears that i'm responding to your post right now.

>>4191002
because he's useful for shooting down positivist dummies who think there is a definite line where tall starts and blue ends

>> No.4191060

>>4191026
"Laws" are how we interpret what is and isn't, not a rule that we make which imposes its will on reality.

A better argument would be that, whatever we perceive as "being" is the only definition of "being" there is, so for any conceivable definition of the universe, it clearly -is.-
>>4191053
Knowledge is impossible.

>> No.4191061

>>4191060
>"Laws" are how we interpret what is and isn't, not a rule that we make which imposes its will on reality.
>A better argument would be that, whatever we perceive as "being" is the only definition of "being" there is, so for any conceivable definition of the universe, it clearly -is.-
irrelevant semantic posturing

>> No.4191062

>>4191048
>right. something is, because the nothing is not
Partially. everything is, and the nothing is not.

>> No.4191065

>>4191060
Then why are you asking for evidence?

>> No.4191071

>>4191062
>Partially. everything is, and the nothing is not.
right, but again just a definitional issue.

>> No.4191072

>>4191061
The first part is a matter of your original argument having semantic problems. The second part is a matter of language being inherently limited. What do you mean by "exist" if that's not what the universe is doing?
>>4191065
Belief supported by evidence is (probably) closer to knowledge than arbitrary belief.

>> No.4191077

>>4191072
i wasn't talking about language idiot try to keep up

>> No.4191082

he was right about mahler and schoenberg being COMPLETE SHIT

wish i could whistle

>> No.4191105

Is there a decent 'how into Luddy Dubs' infopic or something?

>> No.4191133

>>4190272
This guy got it.

>> No.4191164

Because there is.