Why do people pretend like this man never existed?

i'm not even talking about the metaphysicians like the traditionalists and deleuze who hate him for discouraging people from their hobby (they've at least come to grips with their limitations), but i mean the sorts of people writing things like SEP's article on 'the philosophy of architecture.' the whole thing is a joke—a discussion of things like what different philosophers feel is an 'architectural object', etc. is it just people desperate to hold onto their position as "edelstein professor of afro-gendered furniture"?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#MeanUse
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Maybe declaring yourself to have destroyed philosophy doesn't actually mean you have. Maybe the argument "lol I'm just using philosophy to destroy philosophy, it's like scaffolding that you throw away in the end" isn't compelling to a lot of people.

there are people who dont care about clever little language games and prefer discussing important and useful questions

you sound like someone who read a wikipedia summary of tractatus
that's fine. what is and is not an architectural object is important, useful, or meaningful

not to sold on the architectural object debate tbqh, since I doubt there is such a thing as architecture and object. But the discussion of the objectlessness of the architectural object could (and perhaps should) be seen as a discussion of Being in itself, under a determined garnment, and as such is of critical importance for every man

because he wrote nothing of value and should be forgotten

Being is probably the most meaningless topic you could have fucking picked to support your point.

Because you don't have to assent to his claims from a philosophical perspective. Wittgenstein wanted to show how philosophy failed from the outside, not the inside.

1 DUDE
1.1 WORDS
1.11 LMAO

Unironically this
1.1 All things are things
1.11 We see only things
1.12 Things are our x
1.13 the X is all things
1.14 All things is X
Honestly insipid
Creates defintion and follows through with own definitions that are entirely arbitrary and jerks off to own validity
I love when we assign the world to linguistic buckets

>didn't understand the point of the Tractatus

Would love to hear the point
I assumed: that generalized representations are all relative and create a definition of the world.
it's still fucking stupid
>implies representations are sufficiently generalizable
>implies reality is recursive
>impies thing beyond world thats vectored to the representation gives substantive reproducibility to be able to form cohesive images that are somehow consistent
>forgets we're the source
>humans are literally the world because our generalizable representations are only recognizable because our biology
He's a cartesian twat
autism2

No one in this thread has said this man's name..

People in this thread are acting like the tractaus matters and wasn't completely refuted by Wittgenstein himself in the PI, and in doing so he didn't offer one of the most insightful and philosophically important contributions ever made to philosophy

Wittgenstein

lurk two years before posting

>6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

this.

Huh til, maybe i should read it

>a discussion of Being in itself ... is of critical importance for every man
I laughed in real life.

Because he is not a fact

Wittgenstein "what if propositions about things were like pixels on a bitmaps and we can't talk about anything non-pixeled"

Isn't that more of a Bertrand Russell thing?

It is the only topic because it is the only One thing that is you absolute brainlets

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

>dude we are not ACCURATE!11!
>but holy shit, I just found out, we are ACCURATE ENOUGH
all of Wittgenstein in two greentexts, no need to talk further.

dead end

oh and fucking Hegel summarized Wittgenstein before his time. He came up with 'meaning is use' in his philosophical texts.

thats called nominalism and isnt wittgenstein. people in this thread are fucking retarded

plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#MeanUse

>isn't Witty.
Yes it is.

did you read what you posted?

No.

Lol samefag