/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5029259]

Can someone explain to me Wittgenstein's ideas on philosophy and language?

[Anonymous No.5029267]

wittgenstein probably can

[Anonymous No.5029271]

>>5029267
I wish.

[Anonymous No.5029282]

>>5029259
>hurr durr cant know nuffin
>hurr durr language isnt accurate
and then truckload of autism on top of it.

[Anonymous No.5029302]

All these mouthbreathers... I can't.

Why are you not willing to spend time reading and understanding Wittgenstein yourself?

You deserve to be fooled for this. Let's see if someone can make you buy his or her incorrect interpretation of W and let you live with the idea that you have "understood" him.

[Anonymous No.5029311]

>>5029282

Is that really what it comes down to?

and they said this guy is supposed to be a genius...

[Anonymous No.5029317]

not a homework board

[Anonymous No.5029327]

>>5029311
>Is that really what it comes down to?

No. A moron reading On Certainty might come to that conclusion if he gave up after, like, three pages, but no, that's not what it comes down to.

But look. >>5029302 is right. The Tractatus is very opaque, I'll grant you, but OC and the Investigations are eminently accessible; if you care, just read them. TLP, frankly, is largely a historical curiosity, even though in parts it's quite beautiful.

[Anonymous No.5029329]

>>5029302
I just want a quick idea of what his ideas were. Of course I'm going to read his work at some point but at the moment I'm interested and curious so I asked a question. Stop trying to act clever.

[Anonymous No.5029339]

>>5029329
He had idea about Levis 501 jean models that would fit a good sized man ass.

In short, Witty was gay for pay and his philosophy reflects this position by contrasting words and their length to people sexuality.

[Anonymous No.5029341]

Word are the ingredients of thought.

That which is is.

Say what you mean, mean what you say.

[Anonymous No.5029345]

>>5029329
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.5029367]

>>5029327
I don't think Tractatus should be overlooked by someone looking to get into Wittgenstein. Granted, he did delve into mysticism near the end of it; but, the groundwork for his philosophy of language should be considered, at least, mildly-important.

I think some people have this idea that just because he denounced SOME of Tractatus in PI, that all of it is bunk [not that I'm accusing you of such]. Even with his metaphor of kicking the ladder away after you've climbed it, it's important to remember the rungs on which you've climbed.

[Anonymous No.5029373]

>>5029329
>I just want a quick idea of what his ideas were.

Language => meaning is not an innate quality of terms; usage defines it - this may sound trivial until you apply the idea to sentences like 'I know am in pain' and 'I think, therefore I am' ("If a man should say," W. said in a guest lecture at Oxford, "that 'I think the sky is blue, therefore I am,' I should not understand his meaning.") and particularly once you plug it into epistemology.

Philosophy => the distortion of the obvious into the mysterious by means of misapplying language - for two thousand years, philosophers have pretended they are Martians when in fact they are humans. In this, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, I find an echo of Nietzsche's charge that philosophers only seek formalisations of popular folk theories.

But again, just read the books themselves. They aren't even that long and no summary that you'll actually get on a chan can begin to do them justice.

[Anonymous No.5029383]

>>5029367
>I think some people have this idea that just because he denounced SOME of Tractatus in PI, that all of it is bunk [not that I'm accusing you of such]. Even with his metaphor of kicking the ladder away after you've climbed it, it's important to remember the rungs on which you've climbed.

I understand what you're saying, but TLP's influence on philosophy has been largely second-order, IMO, ie, it's what it prompted others to think that has had lasting impact, rather than what it itself says.

For someone getting into Wittgenstein as a subject in himself, TLP is clearly indispensable. But for someone looking to learn about W's actual direct influence on philosophy that can be still be felt today, Vicky 2.0 is the really important part.

[Anonymous No.5029390]

Would you like someone to read the book out loud to you as well?

[Anonymous No.5029407]

>>5029373
Ok fair enough. Thanks for the summary.

[Anonymous No.5029454]

>>5029383
>But for someone looking to learn about W's actual direct influence on philosophy that can be still be felt today, Vicky 2.0 is the really important part.

True. I think Ray Monk's bio on Witty is important, as well [not for philosophical reason, of course].

[Anonymous No.5030037]

>>5029259
‘Necessary truths’ are (or are internally related to) rules of representation and reasoning, which form the network of concepts and transitions between concepts and propositions in terms of which we describe how things are. Although we present them to ourselves as truths, and although we conceive of them as necessarily true and think of them as describing objectively necessary facts, they are not descriptions at all, but expressions of rules for forming descriptions. They are forms of representation.

G.P Baker and P.M.S Hacker, ‘Grammar and Necessity’, in Wittgenstein: Rules, Grammar and Necessity, p. 320

[Anonymous No.5030049]

>>5029383
This is false. TLP has and continues to be far more influential than Investigations. For a time in the 60's - 80's it looked like this would not be the case, but most philosophy these days is along the lines much closer to TLP than investigations.

e.g. drawing metaphysical conclusions from necessary truths (Kripke), metaphysics of mind (Putnam, Dummett), only one kind of truth (Quine, Davidson) etc

[Anonymous No.5030060]

>>5029259
He says rather than having such lengthy and complicated answers, we'd be better off rephrasing the question

[Anonymous No.5030438]

[Anonymous No.5030472]

wtf

I don't even know what to say

[Anonymous No.5030488]

Okay so I haven't read Tractatus or Philosophical Inquiries, but my friend lent me the Blue & Brown books. My god, what a load of shit. 150 pages of this autist expounding on qualia. Literally thoughts I had when I was 9 years old, and he's the professor of caimbridge. What the actual fuck. This book is literally the same thing as when I laid awake at night and wondered if "my blue was other people's red" and thought about variants of things like ' the straw that broke the camel's back' and how
significant that minute addition of force to breach a barrier or whatever could be. I just don't get how he's lauded as so significant.

Should I read Tractatus or Philosophical Inqueries or is it more discussion or qualia and plank units?

[Anonymous No.5030526]

Is Wittgenstein related to post-structuralism?

[Anonymous No.5030628]

Language is a natural capacity we humans have and use in our lives, just like for instance elephants use their trunk to hold things or monkeys their tail to hang. Regular philosophy is a misunderstanding of this capacity due to an incorrect understanding of its workings, as if elephants were to think that noses in general are used to hold things, thus making the mistake of thinking that no other species has a nose. Actual philosophy is a clarification of how language works in order to avoid those misunderstandings that make us waste time and energy so we can live our human lives worrying about what actually matters.

If something aint clear feel free to ask.

[Anonymous No.5030632]

>>5030526
where do you get that idea from? nothing to do with them.

[Anonymous No.5030642]

>>5030628
That was excellently said, sir.

[Anonymous No.5030659]

>>5030488
>the professor of caimbridge

[Anonymous No.5030679]

>>5030628
Basing this question around your elephant example. What W was saying was that people/philosophers were going around saying that language was the only way to convey meaning and only we have this conveyance of meaning? The philosopher's job is to go around showing that meaning comes from more than the innate capacity for language? I know that philosophical confusions arise from misunderstandings of language but is it from the misunderstanding above?

Supposing my questions are on par (heck, even if they aren't this still seems valid) where does language begin and end? Wearing a police uniform is not language per se but it still conveys meaning (namely that the person wearing it is a police officer). So is W's criticism limited to the written and spoken?

[Anonymous No.5030688]

>>5030488
kill yourself

He brings up the "color problem" as an attempt to solve it. Yes, I had the same thought as a child too, but he's interested in trying to find a solution.

You also read the worst book to start with him, literally just a series of thought experiments collected from students' notes of his lectures. The hypothetical situations he poses (e.g. imagine a language where x is the case) are supposed to illuminate a concept of language, which he often times does not explicitly state and the reader or listener must fill in. What you get out of it is proportional to the effort you put in, which explains why you saw nothing in it. Too bad you aren't aware of any of the Tractatus either, considering one of its main tenants is to remain silent on matters you cannot provide meaningful statements about. You should have passed this thread over in silence.

[Anonymous No.5030710]

>>5030688
Okay so what I'm getting through your patronizing faggotry is yes, read Tractatus. Additionally Witty didn't even want the student notes which compose the book I read to be published, so your knee jerk defense of this jewish degenerate who slapped a child to death is hilarious. I'll check out his other works.

[Anonymous No.5030749]

>>5030679
Well, i think he was trying to make us stop looking for "meaning" rather than just trying to give another answer to that question. The misunderstanding is not about the definition of meaning but about the question itself... but of course he knew that no one would ever take that for an answer, so he faced the Meaning myth with a new one, the Use myth (he does not use the word myth in a pejorative way), to give us a functional image about language, an image that allows us to use language in our daily human lives instead of breaking our heads with unanswerable questions (not cause they are difficult but because they are no questions at all); like he says, philosophical problems are not solved but dissolved.

I dont know if that answers your question.

[Anonymous No.5030771]

>>5030749
Yes that helps me a bit. I think I was focusing too much on thinking W was trying to make a new meaning of meaning. This actually helps me in regards to why he keeps building language games only to tear them down.

Thanks anon. I haven't read much past the early work but what little of PI I've read is fascinating.

[Anonymous No.5030813]

>>5030771
Yeah, all his writings are truly fascinating, just to dive in and get lost, read and re read. Maybe you'll find interesting a short and famous text he wrote on philosophy, it is a chapter found on The Big Typescript and simply called "Philosophy". I think the book is on libgen.

[Anonymous No.5030818]

>>5029259
>wahh, please spoon-feed me

[Anonymous No.5031043]

>>5030049
>This is false. TLP has and continues to be far more influential than Investigations.

I made the distinction of TLP's second-order influence and I'm fairly sure your examples are in accordance with it.

[Anonymous No.5031228]

>>5031043
> But for someone looking to learn about W's actual direct influence on philosophy that can be still be felt today, Vicky 2.0 is the really important part.

Any examples of that?

[Anonymous No.5031243]

>>5030488
You mock him for his ability to think creatively and not inhibit himself in the cynicism that comes with age?

[Anonymous No.5031245]

>>5030710
> Wittgenstein
> Degenerate
he was perhaps the most innocent philosopher of 20th century

[Anonymous No.5031383]

>>5031245
>he believes the official biography

lel

[Anonymous No.5031394]

Read Ray Monks Duty of a genius.

[Anonymous No.5031409]

Ironically his own philosophy is misinterpreted and hence gives birth to more philosophical questions. His main idea was if all the answers lie in the question. You need to understand a question fully and you'll find th the answer in itself. And main goal was laying human curiosity to rest. He wanted to answer all questions by simplifying and understanding them. Wittgenstein unlike most other philosophers doesn't try to promote any single ideology, he was just another curious person whose interest in maths made him question the bases of language. His opinions were subjective and he himself said 'Things worth saying can't be expressed linguistically'. He also was against making philosophy a career or an academic concept. He was a genius but what he really wanted to say was left unsaid.

[Anonymous No.5031426]

>>5031409
>doesn't try to promote any single ideology

well, yes and no (he actually said literally once that he was in fact working against one ideology and for another one). i think he realized we humans can only work with what one might call ideology, in a neutral sense of the word... or maybe it'd be better to say through images, so instead of trying to convince us of that, he just gave us a new one that guides us away from the traps the old one had us in.

something similar to that buddha's parable where a father finds his house in fire with his children inside playing and so focused and attached to their toys that they dont realize the danger, so the father instead of trying to explain the danger just tells them that he has new better toys outside the house to make them get out of it.

[Anonymous No.5031461]

>>5031426
He realize humanities basic philosophical need is an objective truth which covers everything. That is what gave rise to religions. That's what science tries to do.

[Anonymous No.5032317]

>>5029259
Someone can. His name is Alexander George. Good luck getting him to talk with you, though. Might help if you're a champion chess player and use that to get your foot in the door.