The last genius in philosophy

Woah, sounds like you've got a case of,

>I didn't get it

You should have just said

His tractatus is autism, his later work is trivial. Every wittyboo faggot I've encountered can never articulate what makes him so profound, which leads me to believe you're all talking out your ass

I hate to sound like a pleb but I've never really been able to connect this sort of high-minded logic gaming with anything that I care about. Not that it isn't worth study, it's just like, who cares dude, lmao.

Does anyone else not like what the school of life produces?

The person narrating/writing tells the viewer how to feel about certain issues from time to time

The Karl Marx video is the only example I can remember but other videos have small lines that guide the listener in a certain direction

Philosophy needs to be unbiased

Yeah it's not good, bite-size videos on complex topics in this day and age are a necessary evil but inserting their own judgments into it is just uneeded for something that is mostly marketed as educational.

I remember watching one on Spinoza where at the end he feels the need to snipe at him and explain why his idea was never going to work in the first place. It would be one thing if there was a fundamental flaw in logic like with Russell but it was really just the author's opinion.

That's because his fans are the least likely to understand him. They care more about his name than his work.

If you want to understand Wittgenstein, just read him for yourself and LOOK.

Explain this guy to me.

Philosophy is field to the brim with geniuses.
The problem is outside of their respective fields, little attention is paid to their work.

I read the tractatus and it was gay and the farthest thing from what I'd call true philosophy. A normal non-autistic person works with the limitations of language because philosophical truth doesn't begin and end with language but is founded on experience, vision, synthesis

>because philosophical truth doesn't begin and end with language but is founded on experience, vision, synthesis

He actually believes this HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHBA

anti-wittgenstein trolls

>capital-T Truth doesn't transcend language

lol anglo autism folks

go back to continental poetry or masturbating to word salad postmodernism then

No

This

>there is nothing valuable beyond language and mathematics

Hahahah go back to number crunching lab monkey

Grothendieck is a greater genius than any continental philosopher

FACT

>thinking Wittgenstein was an analytic

grothendieck

Literally 'I didn't even try to understand it: the post'

Dude language is a picture of reality so if we wanna describe reality we should be really precise about what we mean lmao

Trash """""philosopher"""""

I guess but I still choose to think it was Goethe the last man to know everything

After Goethe Id say Camus is the last philosopher I take seriously
All of his contemporaries and everyone after were just edgelords who thought philosophy shouldnt be focused on ethics

Analytic philosophy is literally tailor made for people with Aspergers. Not that there is anything wrong with that but it is just funtime with axioms throwing the phenomenological human aspect away.

It says a lot when he is popularly associated with off-hand remarks in Nietzsche's earlier work.
>Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth.... Through words and concepts we shall never reach beyond the wall off relations, to some sort of fabulous primal ground of things.
>Elements of revenge.— The word “revenge" is said so quickly it almost seems as if it could contain no more than one conceptual and perceptional root. And so one continues to strive to discover it: just as our economists have not yet wearied of scenting a similar unity in the word “value" and of searching after the original root-concept of the word. As if every word were not a pocket into which now this, now that, now several things at once have been put!

Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius' philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle's, the Roman emperors with the Stoics' and the Epicureans', Lenin and Mao with Marx's, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche's, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers' liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists' and communists' millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.

A comprehensive history of "analytic philosophy".

1. All philosophy has been analytic, from the beginning of philosophy (quite simply because that's what all philosophy, indeed all thought, consists of: analysis).

2. Nietzsche arrives on the scene. Anglo-Saxons do not understand his analysis, ergo it is not analysis. Also, he made fun of them repeatedly for not being able to understand him. This at least they understood.

3. Anglo-Saxons: "Screw the priggish continentals: We will make our OWN philosophy." (= "The continentals are mean to us, so we won't play with them anymore.")

4. Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".

5. No one pays attention to the Anglo-Saxons' illegible rubbish, while book sales and star status of the continentals (many of whom are charlatans indeed but at least not boring) are soaring.

6. Finally Rorty turns around and proclaims the end of "analytic philosophy". "I wish I'd read less of our autistic bullshit and more novels instead."

7. According to the Anglo-Saxons, then, novels are the culmination and ultimate expression of philosophy.

8. And that's where Anglo-Saxon "analytic philosophy" stands to this day. Nothing more than a gigantic reaction movement to Nietzsche calling them names and making fun of them.

Do you mean in a renaissance man sense? Because anything remotely useful to philosophy in Goethe is expounded thousandfold in Nietzsche.

BTW a thing that "makes sense" is a useful thing; something that we can use (therefore, the stronger one is, physically and mentally, the more things he can use, and the more that "makes sense" to him... For neurotics and the hysterical — like for example Sartre, Camus and other weaklings — everything is nonsensical; "absurd"). So the sentence "I love ice cream" makes sense, because it can be used to understand me, while the sentence "Cream my love for ice" is nonsense, because no one can figure out what to do with it. — Now take it to the level of the universe. For the universe to "make sense" to at least someone, it would have to mean that that someone could put the universe to use. But who could use the universe, if the universe is everything? It would have to be someone situated "outside" the universe, which is by definition nonsense. Ergo the universe doesn't make sense, and I didn't even have to leave my room or even put on underwear to determine this, my dear hard-working and hard-studying scientists, who will doubtless continue being perplexed by this idea because, despite the heaps of random stuff they read all day long, they don't like to read philosophy. (It makes them feel uneasy to see a genius lording it over their heads, without even wearing any underwear, so they prefer to look away and try their best to ignore him.)

I was reading an analytical paper on death and it was like "IF WE SAY S IS NO LONGER P, THEN THAT ENTAILS ..." and I was just like "fuck this autism"

Most of them are shit. The Hegel one is atrocious.

Do you remember what paper it was?

Is ok friendo keep reading philosophy and slitting your wrist like the attention whore you are

It was the Stanford encyclopedia article on death. Stopped reading halfway through.

Consider an example. Suppose that we are looking to identify the value for me of drinking this cup of coffee. Call this event Drink. Then the first step is to distinguish the actual world, \(W_{Drink}\), in which I drank the coffee, from the closest world in which I did not, \(W_{{\sim} Drink}\). Then we calculate my welfare level in \(W_{Drink}\), \(IV(Luper,W_{Drink})\) and in \(W_{{\sim} Drink}\), \(IV(Luper,W_{{\sim} Drink})\). The former, \(IV(Luper,W_{Drink})\), equals the value of the intrinsic goods I will enjoy in my life plus the value of the intrinsic evils I will endure

Like what the fuck is this trash? I get what it's going for but nigga just talk about death, people have been talking about death without autistic formulas for thousands of years, just talk about death you fucking tismos

Skimmed through it, it's hilarious how they pass W as an argument to specify in which world the good and bad will be summed. Like nigger there is only this world.

Do you have link? I want to read

Nvm Google was being an retard, I found it

I just want to read a thought-provoking and occasionally beautifully melancholic discussion of death not autistic formula crunching. I got more out of Schopenhauer's 2 page dialogue on death than I did half that entire article

That said, the philosopher who can marry this kind of rigor and analytical insight without losing his eye for real human questions would be the best of them all

He abandoned that entirely. If you're going to criticise Wittgenstein, try not criticising the tractatus, it reveals how much of a plebeian you are.

Fucking retard.

I know, and his later work was a repudiation of his autism, with such earth-shattering philosophical insights as private objects or the murky definition of the word "game".

Like hey I get a lot of philosophy is a rational confirmation of things we already know are true without knowing why that is, but did we really need autists like Russell and Wittgenstein walking around slackjawed with thumbs up their asses for 50 years before they realized "oh wait language and mathematics can't perfectly describe everything. Or themselves"

1/ read Dao De Jing
2/ compare all available translations
3/ ????
4/ profit

YOURE THE GUY I SPOKE TO A FEW WEEKS AGO.

IT IS NOT TIME FOR US TO BEGIN OUR BATTLE AGAIN.

WHAT DIDNT YOU LIKE ABOUT 'ON CERTAINTY'?!

You clearly didn't get it.

People like you and fans of Wittgenstein (charlatan) both don't understand on certainty in the slightest.

.4 All propositions are of equal value.
>yet I am not treating them as a singularity (also an illogical concept)
.41-2
>misuse of 'sense', 'world', 'value', etc as if they even refer to transcendental subjects
.42
>[X] is transcendental
Wouldn't Wittgenstein like to think so?

>What’s attractive about looking at all philosophers in part suspiciously and in part mockingly is not that we find again and again how innocent they are — how often and how easily they make mistakes and get lost, in short, how childish and child-like they are — but that they are not honest enough in what they do, while, as a group, they make huge, virtuous noises as soon as the problem of truthfulness is touched on, even remotely. Collectively they take up a position as if they had discovered and arrived at their real opinions through the self-development of a cool, pure, god-like disinterested dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of all ranks, who are more honest than they are and more stupid with their talk of “inspiration”—), while basically they defend with reasons sought out after the fact an assumed principle, an idea, an “inspiration,” for the most part some heart-felt wish which has been abstracted and sifted. They are all advocates who do not want to call themselves that.— and very remote from the courage of conscience which would admit this, even this, to itself, very remote from that brave good taste which would concede as much, whether to warn an enemy or friend, or whether to mock themselves as an expression of their own high spirits.

Just explain it

Is philosophy pure and simple mumbo jumbo charlatanism?
True question btw

"Part of what is wrong with the view of American imperialism is that it is antithetical to our interests. We are better off when people are governing themselves. I'm sure there is some guy that will tell you that philosophy is no different from the Roman Empire's. Well, it is fundamentally different."

Paul Wolfowitz

>A proponent of Nietzsche

Stopped reading right there.

It can't be explained. Just LOOK.

I hold this man to be the latest genius in philosophy

The worst part is there's not need for the expression in formal logic. This isn't a deeply complex idea that needs to be represented this way. It's literally the exact thing people accuse continentals of.

Although I think that Camus bridged the useful and existential through his questions of absurdity and suicide, I was thinking more of La Chute and La mort heureuse and the practical side of his philosophy.

The secret to being happy is having friends and having good sex and being a part of a team. I think few other people in modern philosophy really value those kind of things.

I definetly think Nietschze understood that some people write off things like friends and sex through slave morality, but I don't think he bridged all those ideas together and ended up just perpetuating the cycle of denial.

continental philosophy is not philosophy