What is philosophy even supposed to do after this guy?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/75MqAyETxn0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

What you do with every analytic philosopher: punch them.

Austrians are the endgame

New Game +

fuck off soros

>was Jewish
>single-handedly destroyed Western music
really makes you think

>was Jewish
>admired Wagner and wrote the greatest romantic cantata of 20th century
youtu.be/75MqAyETxn0
hmm

he actually outlines it in tractatus 6.53 on the proper method of philosophy: philosophers should attempt to regulate the reading habits of others (particularly women) by posting glib denunciations on a sympathetic but low-traffic internet picture board. Veeky Forumss motto: we make ourselves pictures of facts. in order to conduct philosophy, one must prove oneself proficient in a logically perfect language by properly identifying (street) signs [sinn]

Tractatus wasnt even a real valid argument. He 'Build a ledder (the whole book) for the big conclusion (we cant talk meaningfull about philosophy, to threw the ledder away behind him (the argument which is philosophy).
So, it was still a fcking interesting idea and I admire it. But he distanced himself from this later. Idk, did u even read it? Or stuff he talked about later?

Whats not to like about analytic philosopers? For me, its the nicest way to do philosophy. Clear and focused.

Just going to stop this bait right here. No one reply to him please

To both question and answer.

>Tractatus wasnt even a real valid argument.

Yes it was. It was arguing against what Russell was doing with logical constants and trying to bring them into the real world, or treat them as a bridge into the real world, which brings metaphysics into logic. Wittgenstein argued against this over and over again in the book. It only appears like he isnt, and that instead he is arguing for his own form of metaphysics, since he talks about the world and the objects in the beginning of the book.

Yeah, I’d rather hear about the 3748478373846848th attempt to define the precise necessary and sufficient conditions for an agent to know something than hear about how the self is a relation which relates itself to itself by relating the relation of itself to itself to itself.

Clear and autistic.

>agent

What u call bait is my serious opinion. I really liked the analytic philosophers in my studies and still do. (Frege, Wittgenstein, Russel ect.) I had problems with guys like Sartre and Heidegger at first. Ok, Heidegger is still a pain for me. Even if I like their ideas. Its more the way of writing - doing philosophy.

become a monotonous commodity to spiel out to dimwitted undergrads at academic institutions for cash.

become a tired form of cultural capital that you can use to impress people at painfully middle-class soirees or on weeb image posting boards only joking. nobody reads anything vaguely philosophical you post on here. ....... yes I'm talking to you

You’re making analysis seem a lot more exciting than it is

Not sure if u're talking 2 me. But if:
Not true, I got one good reply. So jokes on you. But seriously, woudnt a philosophyboard be a good idea then?

I am the greatest philosopher in all of Azeroth

His own form of metaphysics? As he said, in the very beginning: he 'found the solution 4 every philosophical problem', I think he didn't talk about another form of metaphisics. I think he wanted to draw a line between things we can and we cant talk about in a meaningfull way. And yes you're right. He argued about the stuff u mentioned the whole book.

lol , now I recognised something else in your writing, but consider this: argue against something vs. a valid philosophical argument with premises that leads to a conclusion.

In the case of tractatus the conclusion is, that the prmises arent meaningfull -> thats absurd and makes the whole thing kind of invalid

Please God no, no, no, no, please no don't even joke about it.

You all have misunderstood the figure of the ladder. You haven't recognized it as a *figure* and you miss that if the Tractatus instructs you to disregard its premises, that injunction would likewise apply to the premise about the ladder and all related premises (Wittgenstein could just have easily have placed that in the introduction or otherwise "outside" the body). The premises may be nonsense, but the idea isn't just "toss them all out" - what's important is the urge to speak. Remember 6.53 when he describes the proper method of philosophy as intentionally disappointing the student.

>4
>u
Can you please stop typing like an old man desperately masquerading as a millennial?

A philosophy board would be nice. Or at least a humanities board. Veeky Forums is supposed to be the "humanities board" but 98% of the posts are about history, and if you make a thread unrelated to history it gets ignored or deleted. You could attempt to make the same thread here but you gotta attach an image of a book so the mods don't notice.

It was late at night here, so I was lazy. Sorry to hurt your Veeky Forums feelings.

>A philosophy board would be nice.

No it would not. It would attract all the worst kinds of pseuds. Veeky Forums is fine because the primary subject matter, literature, filters out most who lack the discipline and will to actually grapple with philosophy, resulting in a better board for discussing it.