He did not actually "solve" philosophy, right?

He did not actually "solve" philosophy, right?

For sure of course

He is literally just "cant know nuffin"

Anyone who says that, didn't understand one page of Witt.

He kind of did.

Actually he did.

Yeah but he didn't show his work that well so we're in a kind of Deep Thought '42' situation where we fill in the gaps.

Witty is GOAT but he read barely any philosophy that wasn't early analytic stuff, besides kierkegaard and st augustine

he did end whatever the fuck Bertrand Russell was trying to do tho

The same way that Gorgias and all the other sophists did: by denying first principles.

He read Plato too. One of the few philosophers he commented on explicitly.

>language = philosophy

So if he was GOAT and he didn't read that much.. Couldn't be a more blatant hint

No. The idea comes from an introduction to the Tractatus, which he later repudiated.

>I've basically solved philosophy guys, here it is, read it if you want but I'm not holding any hands
>years later: whoops no I didn't, things are weird, how do u really know what you mean, maan, also philosophical zombies lol

philosophy is not a problem

yes. he ended the age of modern philosophy. What came after was post-modern. Like the catcher in the rye and Feed.

he dissolved it

That's not Hegel tho

Hegel is sort of the proto-wittgenstein

It's a problem if you say it is
If you say it isn't then its not

>implying continentals read Wittgenstein

Technically yes and technically no. If it was properly 'ended,' we wouldn't still have philosophers. That being said, he basically showed how our language is incapable of properly describing all the dilemmas and complexities of philosophical discourse (and the possible existence of a Creator in its Infiniteness) so without the use of adequate terminology, there's nowhere left to go

Or, at least, that's how it was explained to me, but I'm a brainlet

Yes and no, in his view. No in reality

You should actually try reading his work, it clears this question right up

Anyways this will be quick and sort of wrong:

He was against grand a-priori theories and conceptual analysis, and thought that they'd never be able to transcend their framework of language. He thought that philosophy should shift towards being therapeutic, and focus more on disentangling us from misconceptions and misunderstandings than trying to solve grand problems of the universe

He's the only one worth reading to be desu

This. And yet people fundamentally misrepresent him all the time, just like he predicted.

it really pissed me off when stephen hawking said "wittgenstein said that science has figured everything out and now all philosophers have to do is think about language"

mfw he is responsible for the linguistic turn but the affective turn is right around the corner, for philosophy

We have made pretty much fuck all progress beginning from Socrates and Plato. You can never get the last word from anyone. The world isn't in a better place because of Philosophy.

How could a jew who said nothing original solve philosophy?

>DUDE, THERE AREN'T ENOUGH WORDS TO CONVEY WHAT WE TRULY WISH TO *HITS BLUNT*

Wow, absolutely astonishing philosophy.

He continued philosophizing after the book, right? He kept publishing.