What is the appeal of this guy again...

What is the appeal of this guy again? Apart from being le ended philosophy man his ideas seem to be rather limited compared to other philosophers. Is he just a way for people to argue 'u cant no nuffin' without the rigor or integrity required to actually deal with philosophical claims?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_theory_of_language
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Great! It's another thread about an author the OP hasn't read! I can't wait to read the three dozen tepid unfunny replies while discord faggots use the board as a chatroom!!!!!!!!! Thanks OP, glad you felt like posting even though you had nothing to post

I don't know why Veeky Forums likes him.

What did he even say "language is a tool we use to convey our intentions" DUH.

All he did was restate facts that any intellectual already knew. Prove me wrong, you can not.

I think he came from a time when a lot of philosophy was "what is x?", for example what is justice what is truth what is mind, and he tried to dissolve these questions through an analysis of language

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_theory_of_language

Probably one of the dumbest theories of language ever put to paper.

t. late Wittgenstein

You rely on these posts so you can cry more you whore. Delight us your knowledge or fuck off.

Wittgenstein is a very interesting writer when looked from a neoplutonian aesthetic perspective. Prove me wrong, pro-tip you Kant.

"The limits of my language are the limits of my world"
"The world is everything that is the case"
The language game of the beetle in the box
These three things alone are among the greatest philosophical archievements of the XX century

>The language game of the beetle in the box
This thing here said the exact same thing as Derrida way before Derrida. (I still like Derrida, however).

checked

yes, derrida is a watered down and dumber witty, but he had a lot of other stuff to add in places

Have you read Philosophical Investigations?

What are the implications of these statements and why are they so important?

Because from what I know, the "language=reality" meme does not end all philosophical discussion by itself.

Wittengstein wrote another book after the Tractatus, you know that right?

...

That is why I'm asking, because I don't know how Wittgenstein goes from those statements to ending philosophy.

Most reddit image I seen posted on here in a while

all philosophy of language is shit and has no business opining from an armchair about something that's an empirical phenomenon. It has nothing to offer that linguistics can't do better.

To cut it short, in Tractatus he proves, in a fully logically positivistic framework, that is impossible to talk about things such as morality, aesthetics, theology, ethics and so on. This was the basis for the Viennese positivist school, who worshipped Wittengstein and his work, which then devolved into what we would call analyticic philosophy.
Wittengstein kept thinking about the implications of what he had said for the rest of his life, and wrote anything of significance on notebooks that were then published (posthumously) as Philosophical Investigations, in which he expands language as a series of "games" (in this framework formal logic is only one of the many games available in language).
Here's a summary en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy)

Given these new premises, Wittengstein thought that what he said in the Tractatus was essentially true, but only in its context: formal logic can't tackle metaphysical concepts, but there are pther ways in which language can approach these domains.

Try to read Philosophical Investigations. It's truly accessible and extremely entertaining (mainly due to the thoughts experiments that beautifully capture Wittengstein concepts while keeping you engaged).
It's not an easy text, but it can't be tackled without any background. If you plan to read the Tractatus first (it's not really required, although you will be able to see how Wittengstein costantly disproves it in his PI) read Anscombe's introduction first.

>he proved that it is impossible to talk about moral, aesthetics, theology
Sorry lad but I sure can talk about those topics. If you set the same standard in philosophy as in natural sciences in terms of your goal - reaching empirically verifiable conclusions - then the subjects mentioned above are "impossible to speak of". But why should we have such a standard when it comes to philosophy? For example, I can read Aristotle and his ethical insights are fruitful. The mistake you are making is forcing the model of natural sciences where it does not belong. It is entirely possible to coherently talk about all the topics mentioned above - the experience of reading philosophy unequivocally proves this.

There is nothing novel or profound about Wittgenstein and the whole "muh language is everything there is" kind of sophistry.

>hurr why do we need political philosophy when we have political science

you need language to express your philosophical ideas

if you can't use language to express them, then you can't express them.

You're going to trigger a few people posting this truth in a Wittgenstein thread.

Have you read only the first sentence of my post? I specifically pointed out that Wittengstein addressed the way in which we can address topics such as aesthetics and ethics in the second part of my post.

>tfw to intelligence too read more than 2 sentences