Why was he wrong?

Explain to me why he was wrong? I personally believe that he confirmed a lot of things for me that have always seemed like possibilities. Leave PI out of the convo, this is strictly about the tractatus

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 7K)

what did he confirm to you?

postmodern cuck. 'it's all just language xD'. Anti-white, anti-masculine nonsense

>There is a most important mistake in [the] Tract[atus]…I pretended that the Proposition was a logical product; but it isn’t, because “…” don’t give you a logical product. It is [the] fallacy of thinking 1 + 1 + 1 … is a sum. It is muddling up a sum with the limit of a sum - Wittgenstein

Attached: Ludwig_Wittgenstein_by_Ben_Richards.jpg (400x301, 42K)

One of the points that you can say is that he tried to refute philosophy being a field that discusses ideas being outside it's field. Think of it as groups or sets, and philosophy being unable to enter fields like metaphisics by the use of language.

However, how can he confirm that by the very use of philosophy and language? It's pointless to come with an argument like that when you are using the means that yourself find questionable.

I've always thought about things deeply to point of exhaustion. Over time, and especially once in college level courses, I started to realize it's likely that philosophy fundamentally falls short of any of it's goals because of it's methodology being fraught with false consistency, befuddlement, et al. (much of this being caused by language and understanding of meaning)

OP here. I'm a right-wing traditionalist as well as a practicing christian. I'm still allowed to contemplate such problems without accepting their implications, real or otherwise. Fuck off, brainlet.

That's throwing away the ladder. He wanted to get rid of inference problem you are referring to that Russell introduced when he talked about logical constants being known through what Russell refers to as acquaintance. It brings metaphysics into logic in order to get out of solipsism, because you are now justified in inferring this or that.

Wittgenstein starts off the tractatus by illustrating what Russell has set up, in order to tear it down. Wittgenstein only uses the argument to clean up Russell's argument, there is nothing positive being asserted.

is this from PI or just later in life? The reason I said said not to bring up other texts were simply because the tractatus is the only thing I've read by him completely. I intend on reading PI, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

>postmodern
>ordinary language philosopher
lol whut

>he tried to refute philosophy
didnt have to read past that. you read him wrong. I feel bad for you.

This is inbetween TLP and PI

Its from his recorded lectures at Cambridge between 1930-1935

Also you dont have to worry about outside texts. The criticism is fairly lucid, you can do the work on your own to see if you agree or disagree with it

your opener there is evident that youre a fucking autist. im glad we can just trash 3000+ years of human thought because you missed something lol

your opener there is evident that youre a fucking autist. im glad we can just trash 3000+ years of human thought because you missed something lol. now thays what i call certainty

Right. My OP wasn't super descriptive. I personally find his argument and writing style convincing. However, I have an aversion to it all the same because I'm so personally inclined to philosophical thinking. So far, I feel like his thoughts are 100% correct when applied to discourse over X or Y philo-question, but not as much as a broad/strict system of thought.

>thays

Not even a second chance can save you

Attached: 1397778900009.png (315x292, 9K)

Look at other posts I've made, retard. I don't believe Witty's ideas destroy all of philosophy, but that what he points out is certainly at play in philosophical questions whose respective truth may lie outside of our potential acquaintance.

How much philosophy have you studied? Im not trying to be an ass, but
>However, I have an aversion to it all the same because I'm so personally inclined to philosophical thinking.

Doesnt make a lot of sense. Do you think TLP is not philosophical?

Also,the book is about the largest broad/strict system of thought available to philosophy, logic. I dont see how you could think it is better applied to a particular discourse and not a larger system

Are you only referring to his style or writing? Im talking about the arguments themselves

I'm an English major, philosophy minor. Most of my studying has specifically been based around ethics, existentialism, and epistemology. Things like TLP are texts I've read only in my free time.

I misused "philosophical thinking"- This was meant to explain that I have a tendency toward the trends and beliefs more commonly found in continental philosophy rather than concepts in analytic philosophy which can feel reductive and sterile (which I think to be the point of analytic philosophy, more or less)

>*States the obvious*
>"Heh, get on my level plebs."

he was a nazi and supported the vichy government.........

Don't fall for the FUCKING BAIT

Tractatus is nearly impossible to grasp. Witty thought most of the people sharing his ideas were doing him a disservice. In PI he contradicts some of his early positions and elaborates further on some points.

I have PI right here, it is a much easier read.

The old brainlet "nihilism is not tenable" argument eh?

He was wrong because no vocabulary has a monopoly on characterizing the world (read Putnam)