My German engineer very argumentative & tiresome...

>My German engineer very argumentative & tiresome. He wouldn't admit that it was certain that there was not a rhinoceros in the room . . . He came back and argued all the time I was dressing.
>My German engineer, I think, is a fool. He thinks nothing empirical is knowable - I asked him to admit that there was not a rhinoceros in the room, but he wouldn't.
Why do people look up to this idiot Wittgenstein again?

He's promoted out of nepotism rather than merit because he's jewish.

>I asked him to admit that there was not a rhinoceros in the room, but he wouldn't.
hes got a point though, there could be like, multiple dimensions overlapping, simulation, man, there could be invisible aliens all around right now, you can't prove there aren't, just like you cant prove there is not a tea cup floating between the earth and moon right now

It was probably just an autistic German man's attempt at "humor"

That's a completely valid if impractical view. Don't fuck with Witty, his IQ is probably twice as high as yours.

Racist

IQ is a jewish trick

Wait was he German or Jewish? I'm confused

An Austrian Catholic Jew

what they say about anti-semites blaming all inadequacy on the jews is true. Fuck off you impuissant.

s/engineer/friend/
s/rhinoceros/hippopotamus/
s/empirical/existential/

from whence did you come up with that quote?

The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk, Ch3. these are things that Bert Russell wrote during his early encounters with Worry.

>Worry
Witty*

Imagine you're trying to put on your underwear and some man with a thick German accent is telling at you that there's a large dangerous animal in your room and refuses to let you get on with your day until you admit there might be

Prove a negative with absolute certainty.
Pro-tip: you can't.

There is no such thing as an internal exterior

>He wouldn't admit that it was certain that there was not a rhinoceros in the room

Wittgenstein is absolutely right about this.

You forgot to say that it had to be an empirical proof rather than a proof based on definitions or axioms of an internal logic system like the other poster tried to give.

To be pedantic for fun, there is such a thing as a internal exterior depending on how you choose to frame the semantics. Let's put two buildings inside each other. The exterior of the inner building is internal with respect to the outer building.

How can two buildings be inside of each other?

...

That looks like one building with courtyards

And your mum doesn't look like a slag, but appearances can be deceiving.

Is that supposed to prove something about the contradiction exemplified by the phrase 'internal exterior?'

No, just that if you bid low to start you might save 50p.

I don't understand

Ludwig himself was the rhinoceros all along.

If I'd offered her a whole pound for a blowie right off the bat she'd have taken it.

I don't understand :(

He is suggesting your mother would suck a man's penis for money.

I do not understand

What's an impuissant? A jew?

Nah, that's classic jew pathologization of the other. Jews have always caused problems wherever they've gone.

And there also couldn't be a tea cup floating between the Earth and the moon, which we cannot currently disprove or prove. Both assumptions on empirical experience disregard the possibility that the universe exists external to human perception, so I'm highly skeptical that either is correct.

>Both assumptions on empirical experience disregard the possibility that the universe exists external to human perception
What?

NO

The empire statebuilding is not in my pants right now

>And there also couldn't be a tea cup floating between the Earth and the moon, which we cannot currently disprove or prove.

Yeah, but Witty wasn't saying 'I am certain there is a rhino in the room', he was just saying he was not certain there was not. (if this is even a real quote)

The more interesting question is whether the later Wittgenstein would've accepted this definition of the word "know".
This argument, this story of Wittgenstein, is very Tractatus.

suppose that there is no negative (ever).
if true there is a negative, namely the abscense of an abscense of things
by contradiction, a negative exists