It's not funny anymore. Just explain what this guy said already...

>Nah he really didn't say much desu, it's all pretty simplistic analysis with a bunch of complex semantics to make it seem intellectual.
This sounds less like Wittgenstein and more like Hume

I just said something I knew OP would like. I have no idea, not smart enough really to read wittgenstein and get anything out of it. Working my way up though, being a STEMlet really put my reading behind where I think it should be.

>his alarm clock isn't a reading david hume's essays
how the fuck do you even wake up user, let alone sleep at night?

he also snuck pornography onto library shelves so he's automatically based

Ask a guy who wrote his master's dissertation anything concrete* and I'll try and give an answer that relates to Wittgenstein

*but not about my job search

>a reading david
a-reading-of
of course my first typo in ages lands on dubs

Oh hey you're the dude from that other thread.

Hey so I'm a brainlet, I'm reading how to read books because literally my education brought me to a standstill in reading and it wasn't until now I realized just how absolutely retarded it is to not read.

Having said that, is it even worth reading the Tractatus for self-edification? Should I just go with the brown and blue books into PI?

you haven't read hume have you

>haha dude like causation isn't correlation
>lol how do you even come up with morality
WOW what a geniouse

correlation isn't causation*

Everyone asks about the Tractatus but reading anything except, maybe, the final proposition is a big meme.
The most efficient way to start would be with a few of the youtube videos - but be conscious of not letting them colour your perception:
youtube.com/watch?v=XB3OwIV5oro

youtube.com/watch?v=8BoKjQfMihs

youtube.com/watch?v=EQHiGrCNwJI

Pay attention to the Preface of the Investigations, as written by Wittgenstein himself and then go into the PI. It almost isn't important which order you read them in. The Tractatus's final proposition and the B and B books are a transitional period that culminated in the PI (which itself wasn't finished)
You can decide then where you want to go, but here's a little tip that's often overlooked:
In my opinion when Wittgenstein is talking broadly about philosophy he is talking about analytic philosophy.

I'm not the user you're responding to, but if you actually want to try to understand whatever philosopher you're interested in your go-to source of information shouldn't be posts on an anime porn forum. If you don't feel up to reading the primary sources then at least find some lectures on Youtube or something.

Thanks, I've seen the Searle interview but I'll watch the others as well.

I'll probably get investigations from my local and then get into it at some point in the near future.

I work to make sure that random internet retards don't cloud my views because I know how easy it is to say just anything and then have people agree with me, even though I have no way of actually knowing whether or not this guy did his master's on witty, I'm willing to take that risk to hear what he thinks is a good way to get into it. I don't exactly have a philosophy department I can ask.

Hi it's op.

Can you guys stop ruining all my threads please?

As for you user, , so just explain what a word is to wittgenstein, what language is to wittgenstein, and how it applies to philosophy.

>As for you user, #, so just explain what a word is to wittgenstein, what language is to wittgenstein, and how it applies to philosophy.
If it could be explained so easily then why did he write 2 whole books about this?

Christ your dumb

Because he didn't write two books about that. Most of it is filler, he only wrote a few pages about it, I've read them and I don't get what he's sayig because he speaks poorly, it seems like he was saying nothing at all. Answer the three quesions, they don't take more than a sentance to answer each

It's clear he just doesn't vibe with you man

It's the same with me and Kant, just ignore him for now and read someone else who you're more interested in

1. A tool
2. A game which uses tools
3. It stops us thinking words are transcendent. It stops us thinking like positivists.
Too often people ask "What is life?" (Or other common philosophical responses)
Wittgenstein's answer is to remind us not to take words on holiday when we answer those questions.
If you take a word out of its context then you take it out of its game - and to Wittgenstein the meaning of a word (in most cases) is its use in the language game.
Do you see? We no longer define the meaning of a word by some "deeper" abstract, yet at the same time we know exactly how to use the word.
For example: We stare at a half squished bird and I ask "Is it alive?" - you know from the context what I mean, there is no call to go "What is life?" The answer is "No"
If we talk about an artificial intelligence I ask "Is it alive?" then the context, the game, has changed. The answer is unclear but the use of the word "alive" is no longer the same.
Wittgenstein actually says: Don't be fooled by the fact that the words share the same form, or that their uses have family resemblances to each other - they are not the same word.

Compare Chomsky's language acquisition device which relates to the idea that we have an inbuilt, rather than learned, understanding of syntax.

P.S Your next thread should have his portrait upside down.

There's more to the PI than just those questions though.
He also sees philosophy as a therapy and a form of meditation. There's a big part of his work that's dependent on common sense and/or your own personal perspective.
Read the Preface of the PI and then read it again.

PS (prescript)
I've only done a few of the wit threads. not all.

That was a good explanation, not complete, but better than I expected. 9/10 job.

You see how little words it takes to explain it? I told you guys. This user explained it very easily without needing many words.

yeah but that's because only I understand Wittgenstein. I don't blame you for not getting it there are literally two well established schools, the Pyrrhonian and the Non-Pyrrhonian that differ on whether Wittgenstein intended the total destruction of philosophy or a radically different way of doing it.
I cannot deny that he was opaque.

That's just it. His skepticism basically turned enlightenment philosophy on its head. It wasn't until Kant took up where he left off. And desu Kant still didn't address a lot of what Hume said.

>For example: We stare at a half squished bird and I ask "Is it alive?" - you know from the context what I mean, there is no call to go "What is life?" The answer is "No"
>If we talk about an artificial intelligence I ask "Is it alive?" then the context, the game, has changed. The answer is unclear but the use of the word "alive" is no longer the same.
>Wittgenstein actually says: Don't be fooled by the fact that the words share the same form, or
that their uses have family resemblances to each other - they are not the same word.

This is actually really great and interesting example.

So basically, we get comfortable with our words and deffinitions, but then meet situations in where our understanding becomes uncertain, or blank, because we realize our understanding of actual reality is lacking, and there is a lapse in our neat and tidy organized concepts and meanings, like the meaning of life, who defines the word, the concept:

Same thing gets down to 'bacteria', single celled, etc. plants.

Life is defined as: cellular? carbon based? Process energy? reproduce? Contain DNa?

If the AI does not contain one or any of those, then it would not be categorized as life or living.

But this does not eliminate the possibility for 'artificial consciousness' cyborg to someday exist.

A robot with strong AI consciousness, would the definition of Life then simply change to include such? Or would there be a subset? Or would it simply be 'not a life form, not living', but 'conscious existing entity?

>there is a lapse in our neat and tidy organized concepts and meanings
It's interesting you should say this, I actually think Wittgenstein shows us that our concepts, and the labels we attach to them, are not as organised as we think.
He encourages us to be attentive to this kind of thing.
(Nothing I'm saying is intended to come across as a criticism)

Look here, you say:
>If the AI does not contain one or any of those, then it would not be categorized as life or living.

Have you ever heard someone say:
"This room is alive?"
Imagine walking into a room with ergonomic marble tables and vivid sculptures of long dead civilisations, on the walls are murals of battles and feasts.

It's very tempting to embrace the generalisation that scientific definitions appear to afford us. To talk about the microscopic DNA/RNA modules, or to talk about chemical/electrical reactions in the brain. Yet here we have a use of "alive" to refer to something very dead in both of those two latter senses, and yet it is true to say it is alive.

You should see the way /tv/ talks about that JOI character from Bladerunner, she's more alive than some of those NEETs and she's a *fictional* artificial intelligence.

>Life is defined as: cellular? carbon based? Process energy? reproduce? Contain DNa?

These definitions are all legitimate, but Wittgenstein would be wary of this kind of rigid refrain to scientific language when clearly our "ordinary language" (a technical term for Wittgenstein) does the job much better.

When we have a machine that thinks we may very well call it "alive" or we could create a new name for it, couldn't we? A Synthetic Intelligence?

>would the definition of Life then simply change to include such?
>the definition
>the

*a* definition might change. Some uses of the word life might become incoherent.
As shown, we don't have a single use for the word "life", there is not really one single definition anyway.

Try not to get too caught up in the defining. We know what we see, in most cases paying attention to the "definitions" of words only bewitches us, narrows our vision.
Words are just tools, and like a claw-hammer, they have many different uses.
You aren't going to learn anything from putting nails into a piece of wood by looking at the claw end of that hammer.

It's been a while since I've read anything so I'm sorry if I sound retarded, but I noticed a few things I didn't pay much attention to or didn't notice the first time I read PI, correct me if I'm wrong please

First, he follows on Herder/Sapir-whorf/Heidegger's "language determines thought" line, and going with that he completely rejects the notion of fixed concepts period

Does that mean he'd also reject the existence of a "thing in itself", or in the very least consider it irrelevant? As said,
>then meet situations in where our understanding becomes uncertain, or blank, because we realize our understanding of actual reality is lacking
it wouldn't be that our understanding is lacking, but merely that it's (yet) unbuilt, because "alive" is a built concept and not something independent that exists outside of our understanding. It's not something to be learned from observation, but to be created, or incorporated in a different context to include the new elements (an AI) that don't particularly conform to previous definitions?

Am I just extrapolating on what he said?

>"language determines thought"
No, I don't think Wittgenstein says this. Though Dreyfus might like him to.

What do you mean by "fixed concepts"?

I'm not comfortable with the way you're using the word "concept" - it's as though you're using the word "concept" and "word" interchangeably.
It might be begging the question in favour of your worldview.

I can try and give you a better answer when you clarify for me.
Also, both of you are acting as though we draw from a stockpile of concepts and definitions when we define words, whereas quite frequently we use words correctly but cannot always define the meaning of them when asked.

I know he doesn't say that, I was inferring it from his ideas because that's what I got from "philosophical problems are language problems"
I was using concept (sorry, language barrier + lack of formality in my readings lead to shit terminology) to refer to a precise use/meaning strictly associated with a word, one that exists outside of the game. From what I gathered, something like that could not exist

>as though we draw from a stockpile of concepts and definitions when we define words
I worded it awfully then, that's not what I meant at all. I was thinking of it the other way around, that the meanings (definitions?) are added to the words in order to expand them, not that they're used in order to define them

If this still doesn't make sense it means I'm not ready to be posting at all will just gb2 lurking

>Have you ever heard someone say:
>"This room is alive?"

>Yet here we have a use of "alive" to refer to something very dead in both of those two latter senses, and yet it is true to say it is alive.

But we know a single word can have more than one meaning: We know metaphors exist.

My girlfriend is as hot as the sun.

We can understand meaning transfered not literally.

The room is alive.

It is as if the room were alive.

We...or I... know the room is not actually cellular, carbon, dna, brain, food etc,

>>then meet situations in where our understanding becomes uncertain, or blank, because we realize our understanding of actual reality is lacking
>it wouldn't be that our understanding is lacking, but merely that it's (yet) unbuilt,
What I meant was that, well first I will say, I think that reality has built in deffinitions, in the fact of its differences, an apple is different from a pear, an orange, a deer is different from a dog, a bird, a rock, so we use these differences to categorize:

So we collected things, and categories and made a word: Life, and gave it definitions:

But there are blurry areas: like a concious robot could be possible, and nature would be saying '''this is life too, even if you wont and dont call it that... this is the idea of life, shares a similar essence with life... even more so then the plants you call life.... but you can just categorize it as conscious entity if you want'''

To us, there is a difference between sweet and sour (controversy maybe...):

(just as maybe hot and cold... then debate gets to where exactly 'warm' starts)

So X is sour, Y is sweet, but wait, this Q tastes like it is at once sweet and sour, so now we have to make a new category, do we call this sweetsour, or do we make a new independant class, or do both, or does it matter... what is the actually truth of this thing as it is in nature?

Is warm: HotCold? Or is warm neither Hot nor cold?

Warm is simply ______ - ______ degrees celsius.

what I was trying to get at first is I believe the concept/s of Life, what it means and is, is already embedded in nature and its possibilities, we can discover and classify them, but there is sense to be made. There can be slips and slides with classification: plants are life, but they dont have conciousness, everything with DNA is called life, but if we find aliens that are just like us but have something other than DNA, we will consider them in relation to the classification that is the word 'life'

>What I meant was that, well first I will say, I think that reality has built in deffinitions
Also I wrote this without thinking much about it, whether it was true or not, it was just an intuition to run on to see what I can see from it, if I think about it further i may see that it is nonsensical, at least this top phrase.... I am just saying this cause I just reread just that first line in a glimpse and it sounded awfully confident, took me aback

get the fuck out of this thread

stop thinking like a positivist
there's no transferred meaning
there's no "greater" or lesser meaning

>We...or I... know the room is not actually cellular, carbon, dna, brain, food etc, (but we say it's alive)
You can flip the script and be equally as accurate
>We... or I... know that the cellular, carbon, dna, brain, food etc is not actually a vibrant display of culture and art, (but we say it's alive)

>You can flip the script and be equally as accurate
You can write any series of letters in any order but only some of them have expressible, hierachial, multi tier, cross referenced meaning

so?

Teacher is:
>There are limits to what we can and cannot say and we shouldn't try to overstep them
PI
>Language is primarily functional rather than logical, a game rather than a test

TRACTATUS*
This fucking autocorrect is worthless

so falseness is a lie, and too many beliefs of falsenesses can lead to death

Because being wrong feels bad.

Because a lot of life, and a lot of good of life depends on knowledge of verifiable facts, regularities, understanding, agreed meaning.

you can believe whatever you want, but you can be wrong.

The worse that can come from it is you die due to your wrongly held beliefs, your ignorance, you believing a fast moving car is an edible hamburger, or that a lively room is a lively monster that is trying to eat you that causes you to run out in the street and fall down the stairs and break your neck.

People can be wrong, and you can say so what, what if it feels better to be wrong, to be ignorant, to think whatever you want is true and live your life like that, that may be true that you can enjoy your life better by having less facts in your head, and by having information in your head that is verifiably untrue.

Nice point mate, sincerely.

He was Veeky Forums's best meme until company of fools etc.

You can write any series of letters in any order but only some of them have expressible, hierachial, multi tier, cross referenced meaning so falseness is a lie, and too many beliefs of falsenesses can lead to death.

Hey you! Do you understand what I mean when I say: ?
Because you seem to have a handle on it.

These other chumps keep trying to go beyond the linguistic with Wittgenstein - it's a tragic compulsion and I don't know how to get them to stop.

Why do you think you have to lose that simply be acknowledging that not all words have a basis in science?
In 100 years time people will laugh at how inaccurate measuring life by DNA and cells was. It doesn't make a difference, you don't lose anything.

that's more coherent this time, very good.
Wittgenstein isn't about beliefs, it's about possibility.

FOR FUCKS SAKE YOU PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ME INSANE

>These other chumps keep trying to go beyond the linguistic with Wittgenstein
You dont get to make little boxes and say: You can only think and play in here!! if you try to refer to outside the box you lose!!

You dont get to make the rules of philosophy, the world and thinking exist without you and your thoughts.

What matters in philosophy includes linguistics but is also beyond linguistics. I am interested in the whole, and the parts, and how the parts relate to each other, and how they form the whole.

You are ignoring any parts outside the part you are focusing on, how it is relevant to any other parts, how it relates to other parts, and the whole.

I think this is where the term autistic would literally apply, in relation to a harsh, debatable 'limiting'

>These other chumps keep trying to go beyond the linguistic with Wittgenstein - it's a tragic compulsion and I don't know how to get them to stop.
Really the way to stop is to read W. He's actually very clear about this stuff. Unfortunately we're on Veeky Forums where people don't actually read things before or after discussing them 9 times out of 10. People get the idea in their head that he's some sort of medieval-type ontologist and end up stuck deeper in the 'bottle' instead of finding a way out of they just hear the legends about how smart he was.

>In 100 years time people will laugh at how inaccurate measuring life by DNA and cells was
source

>These other chumps keep trying to go beyond the linguistic with Wittgenstein - it's a tragic compulsion and I don't know how to get them to stop.

Use shapes and operator symbols to replace the ideas he's expressing with fluent autism. Dude's a fucking Fisher-Price Teach Me Arithmetic toy that got mad when the other philosophers didn't give him the trophy for winning philosophy.

The function of Wittgenstein's language is to make Wittgenstein look smart. If you turn it into shapes and colors that don't tug on you as hard with alternate meanings, it's primary school math.

Why are you so mad?

why are you interpreting my words as mad? or me being mad?

You just seem upset. Maybe a little testy.

>when you cum your pants a little because you actually can provide source for a little snarkodile fit

Wanna get breakfast or something?

>Dude's a fucking Fisher-Price Teach Me Arithmetic toy that got mad when the other philosophers didn't give him the trophy for winning philosophy.
But they DID give him that trophy.

>Why do you think you have to lose that simply be acknowledging that not all words have a basis in science?
I dont know what you mean by this: Is this related essentially to my spirit of claim that all words refer to something (yes even if a single word is used to refer to multiple somethings)?

give me an example, always give examples

I have a beetle in a box
You have a beetle in a box
Only I get to look at mine, only you get to look at yours
What's the point of this thought experiment again?

The idea of Russell and Foucault handing Wittgenstein a trophy and going "You did it, Ludwig! You won philosophy!" makes me smile.

>You just seem upset. Maybe a little testy.
Is it possible in truth and fact and reality I am not, or how would we measure my madness, time is passing quickly and slowly, and I may be doing multiple things, I may type and think with a vigor, I may get excited, I may get heated, arguing, discussing, debating may be one of my favorite things, a thing that makes me most happy, can I be mad and happy at the same time? ok ok, I do get a kneejerk surge of energetic anger or disbelief of high blood pressure spaz of frustration when I encounter incorrectness, lack of sense, lack of understanding, contradiction, failure of getting it, failure of comprehending, faulty mode of explaining

>Spinoza and Hegel crying in a corner
>Heidegger doesn't even know that there was a competition

A lot of good of life also depends on lying.

Calm down, bucko, it's not worth getting upset.

What is his, or your, or your understanding, of what the definition of life should be?

Literally everything? All energy?

As with every question I ask, I am actually asking for you to answer

The joke is that Ludwig would start crying with joy while Russell and Foucault start nudging each other in the ribs.

You might think that but do you have evidence that it's true?

You've... never read Asimov's nonfiction, have you?

>A lot of good of life also depends on lying.
some examples? Define a lot. Examples of some of these 'goods of life'.

im not upset, there is right and wrong, true and false, I attempt to determine what is what, when someone is being stubborn or dumb, I do get flustered, but it is no big deal

Are you two even speaking the same language?

dude shut the fuck up you loser tryhard fuck get some money

>but it is no big deal
Your assumption that others are wrong or stubborn is sort of a big deal, actually. Especially when this assumption causes you to get so mad.

really made me THINK

>You might think that but do you have evidence that it's true?
I define Life as at least having the opportunity to be good, If everyone thought it was true that 'some poison mushroom was edible' and ate it, or that chopping ones head off with a saw would give you a long life was true, then everyone would die.

I know that is raa. But human life, history, progression from simple wild animaldom, has been the increasedness of verifiable, repeatable, understanding of self and nature.

Sure the bible calls this a downfall, and you might too. And maybe for some people, a simple primitive life might be more enjoyable, than space ships, luxory cars, malls, baseball games, hotdogs, carnivals, symphonys, etc. but for some people it might not be, I am arguing from the point of view of the latter, although I can sympathize with the former, as I enjoy going camping and spending time in the mountains and woods, in cabins, in rural lands.

Not really, desu. I'm speaking internet and just trying to get close enough to some kind of a point by any means necessary and not particularly interested in whether anyone understands it perfectly, he's speaking corporo-academic and would deny that "corporo-academic" is a word that conveys a meaning.

>You dont get to make little boxes and say: You can only think and play in here!! if you try to refer to outside the box you lose!!

Those are language games. That's exactly what Wittgenstein says our conversations comprise of. They're almost exactly like scientific paradigms which use similar terminology but don't mean the same thing.
You're the kind of bumbling fool who'd step into a Quantum mechanics lecture with a pure maths degree and throw a tantrum as to why you couldn't join in. You're not speaking the same language.
The statement you made is so anti-Wittgenstein, and so ill-informed. its like you've decided to disagree with him before you've understood him.

>You dont get to make the rules of philosophy, the world and thinking exist without you and your thoughts.

Nobody denies that.

>What matters in philosophy includes linguistics but is also beyond linguistics. I am interested in the whole, and the parts, and how the parts relate to each other, and how they form the whole.

Wittgenstein isn't. He's only interested in linguistic philosophy get that into your fucking thick skull. Stop trying to apply him to other things.

>You are ignoring any parts outside the part you are focusing on, how it is relevant to any other parts, how it relates to other parts, and the whole.

I'm explaining Wittgenstein. He doesn't go beyond those parts. There's nothing to "ignore" because he doesn't cover the remit you want to go into.
There are interpretations but that's just it, nothing concrete.
Read the preface to the PI

>I think this is where the term autistic would literally apply, in relation to a harsh, debatable 'limiting'

It may be autistic but the fact that you think it's limiting shows that you don't understand it.

Shut the duck up, please. Nothing you're saying makes any sense. That's the single worst definition of life that I have ever seen.

What are some good of life that depends on lying? What is a lot of good of life that depends on lying?

kys

So how will you know when the conversation is concluded?

Keep trying, we're just not the right men using the right words yet!

We can figure this out, you guys!

>duck
Rabbit*
No, really, I meant fuck. Autocorrect again. Sorry for mobileposting but I'm at work and don't want this shit on a larger screen.

How is this not just Kantianism?
>dude we can't know the things in itself because we perceive the world through our limited faculties

Where is the current misunderstanding? Ignore my madness, it is unquantifiable, could be a picosecond twinge when seeing a contradiction. You cannot quantify or understand my bodily and mental anger by my typing. I am asking questions and making statements, when I throw in an ad hominem I dont do so with anger or fury in my heart, but usually amusing jest. When I write a serious of questions I am straight faced and in the zone focusing, stop projecting and deflecting, this is irrelvent, pretend I am furiously angry, pretend I am deliriously in joy, I am closer to that latter, with a hint of the former at times.

..."concluded?"

If you can't tell the difference between Wittgenstein and Kant then you haven't read them both. But for your sake I'll explain it to you. Kant is talking about the limits of reason while Wittgenstein is talking about the limits of language.

HE
IS
NOT
MAKING
A
PHENOMENOLOGICAL
POINT
FUUUUUUUCK

It's linguistic

>projecting
You're the one projecting. I'm too tired to project. Stop getting upset.
Yes, I'm not sure what I meant, either, which was part of the reason I asked that question.

>What matters in philosophy includes linguistics but is also beyond linguistics. I am interested in the whole, and the parts, and how the parts relate to each other, and how they form the whole.
>Wittgenstein isn't. He's only interested in linguistic philosophy get that into your fucking thick skull. Stop trying to apply him to other things.

So what is something he is interested in? What is a linguistic problem he is interested in? And if he was only interested in that, how did he have the wherewithal to say anything about the whole of philosophy?

>the only things that can truly know themselves are those things created with a part dedicated to truly knowing themselves

Kant's reality is kind of a cheeky little fucker.

wow, such arguments, much impressive

Linguistics and the philosophy of language are distinct from each other. Questions about language are notoriously tricky to formulate, even impossible to formulate, due to the nature of questioning language by way of language.

I'm really not sure that you know what an argument looks like. I just want you to stop embarrassing yourself. I'm trying to help you!

are you suggesting wittgenstein was a purposeful charlatan for nefarious conspiracy plans of confusing bewildering the masses with worthless pointless innanery?

My part of the conversation is concluded when I get bored and leave.

Anonymous picks up parts of the pieces where I left off and that faggot never shuts up.

It leads to the same or at least similar conclusions though. At least Kant believed our perception is sufficiently close to reality and didn't devolve into "lol you can't know nothing, it's all like relative bro *rips bong*"

not even gonna reade what you guys were talking about. why do you argue with ppl on Veeky Forums? for real whats the purpose of this dialogue u weirdo fag