/lit/ - Literature

>>16784569
It's funny, before I had been introduced to Wittgenstein I began to find it strange that no matter whose metaphysics I was studying, the philosopher in question had always come up with a basically similar way to live. Always it seemed as if there were great contradictions between different philosophers, but the way they led their lives all fit a pattern. Granted, some were more choleric, and others were more introverted, but they all had similar thoughts about life itself.

This is when I began to see that something was up, because if you see this, then metaphysics is just a justification for non-metaphysical actions and choices; metaphysics is just a religious assertion -- and there is nothing wrong with that -- but it is not an argument in itself.

>>16755449
>Seems like they belive God had a set plan for their lives and deviating from that "plan" is tantamount to sin
First off, this is a fascinating point to make because in a way you're right, but also there's quite a lot of freedom too.

Really you have to stop being a philosopher and realize the holiness of the everyday. The plan it would seem, that God has for us is that we tend to his earth, for he made man a gardener from the beginning (Genesis 2:15). Philosophers have generally seen mankind's purpose as that of a thinker, but God's plan for us is that we are mainly physical labourers. This is the problem for many philosophers, since Christianity seems to them like a poor garment for the mind, but in fact the mind is better the less it thinks about philosophy.

Why does /lit hate him so much?

>>16654675
Wittgenstein recognized that in modern times we cannot claim and generate apodictic knowledge anymore (for whatever reasons), so it gets replaced with certainty. Certainty normally is just as good. Certainty is like 'knowing' the stairs in your house so well that you can run them up in the complete darkness of the night without hesitating, while it could very well be that there is an item on them that you forgot or which your family member left there over which you stumble and fall down the stairs despite your previous better 'knowledge' (read certainty).

Btw thread died too fast.

>>16637811
Actually this is incorrect. The world is the totality of elementary propositions, not of things. What you should have said is that not all words refer to things. Then you could start to pick apart Godel's axioms by questioning if P, phi, x or psi really refer to actual things. (I don't know what concepts Godel is using here, but P, G, phi, x and psi are his elementary concepts, G I assume is God, but as for the rest, they may or may not exist).

I assume though that if Godel found this convincing, he would have made sure that the atomic facts in his axioms are highly plausible.

>>16623517
That's a worthless take because you don't understand why philosophy is flawed. It can be a cope all you like, but if you can't refute it, then you lost the argument.

Watch the video
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTgy3WCT0UU

But I suppose you're right on one point that Wittgenstein takes up in Culture and Value; philosophy is captivating because humans are intelligent enough to desire permanence and certainty, but not intuitive enough to realize that there is no such thing as permanence or certainty.

>>16604260
Literally just watch this, it's only 20 minutes
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTgy3WCT0UU

>>16583346
I highly suggest that before you get into philosophy you at least look up and understand Wittgenstein.

Watch this video, it's only 20 minutes
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTgy3WCT0UU

>>16573513
This is the kind of retardation you get with the name-theory of language. You look at a map and on the map there is a town called Glasgow, so you drive to Glasgow. Then you stand there and say "I'm in Glasgow" even though you are just in among a collection of houses and office buildings. But in your thick skull, all the houses in Glasgow must have Glasgowness, or why call the town Glasgow?

In short you're a fucking idiot. What does "thou shalt not kill" have to do with "thou shalt not covet"? The answer is that they have nothing to do with one another, they don't possess "moralness" any more than the houses in Glasgow possess Glasgowness. But just because houses in Glasgow don't possess Glasgowness, doesn't mean that they are not houses, and just because thou shalt not kill doesn't possess moralness, doesn't mean that thou shalt not kill means anything other than what it already did.

do I need some prior knowledge before getting into wittgenstein?

>>16568876
Most of your friend's objections don't give Aquinas a fair shake. I think the real question on Aquinas today is whether you believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, or you think that there is just one universe and that probability waves don't exist in nature.

You need to read up, so I recommend the following article.
>https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/i-do-not-believe-in-the-multiverse-the-case-for-realism-28084b0c285e

If the idea of infinite universes sounds like an absolutely braindead thing to propose, then you can believe in a Creator because the universe is unique, it may be huge, but there is only one universe. If you believe the radically stupid idea that there are infinite copies of you in other universes just because the interactions between fundamental particles is probabilistic, then you have to be an atheist.

But your friend's objections to argument 1 and 2 imply a multiverse. That's what he means by infinite nonrepeating patterns.

>>16568905
>>16568915
Shitposters

>>16539014
Well, I don't know, but I think you've been reading bad philosophers. You know the type; they aren't entertaining, they came along after all the good ideas were taken and so they invented bad ones to increase their notoriety and make money.


If you want my opinion, I notice that materialism is a doctrine that appeals to me most in my worst mental states, in the midst of the worst sins. That God exists is natural to a wise and content mind. Therefore live always as if there is a God, and you will discover that there is. Remember Wittgenstein; our language can only deal with facts, therefore if you don't implement a religious mode of life, religion will remain an abstract theory that you cannot inhabit.

But if you don't want my opinion, then be happy anyway. To this end I present you with a link to a book of all Diogenes' sayings. It's called "Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes, with other popular moralists" (OUP)
>https://b-ok.lat/book/2632988/465e40?regionChanged=&redirect=3582109

>refuted by refutation of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

>DUDE LANGUAGE LMAO

>>16440966
Wittgenstein? More like Shitgaystain

>>16432527
Because in order to do propaganda you have to understand what people consider good. But what people consider good is because their motive is self-interest. You will never get people to organize by telling them to forget their self-interest. If you say "we can get the greatest amount of good by abandoning our self-interest" then you have not understood what humans mean by good (their self-interest).

A while ago I came across a website that had the propositions and sub-propositions of the TLP indented in a tree like form. I can't find that one, but it was something like this one:
http://philosurfical.open.ac.uk/tractatus/tabs.html
Does anyone know any similar webpage? Especially one in German. It helps a lot with keeping in mind what each sub-proposition is trying to explain.

Hey, sorry to interrupt, but does anyone have that meme of the guy from that TV wrestling show where there are a whole bunch of terrible citations, or a downright refusal to make citations, and each bad citation gets more outrageous than the last, and the guy is comatose by the end of it?

If nobody understands what I mean, the last citation in the series said "this was revealed to me in a dream." Also it contains a quote form Wittgenstein's Tractatus where he says that he refuses to cite because he doesn't care if he's not original.

Thanks in advance guys,

>>16330198
That's a completely unnecessary question. You know exactly what he means.

Has anyone successfully refuted him?

>>16282104
*AHEM*

>>16161184
>>16161197
Stop with your forced meme, you dumb continental, read real philosophers instead

>>16024310
>losing an argumentt
>quote Wittgenstein
>start to argue over semantics

>>15913157
Sorry, but no