Did Wittgenstein win the philosophy language-game or did he just knock over the pieces and storm off?

Did Wittgenstein win the philosophy language-game or did he just knock over the pieces and storm off?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_90_Minutes_series
my.mixtape.moe/kgmvik.mp3
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why don't you read him to discover?

Sometimes, reading about Wittgenstein and his books I feel that he had a kind of "star power" because of his sudden and meteoric rise that we cant see through, and maybe his books are purposely obscure through brevity to mask how primitive his ideas actually were, and people were so convinced he HAD to be a genius and they just couldnt get it

His ideas of grammars certainly make sense, and his language games are interesting, but they seem like points of view rather than the broom of philosophy that he tried to create

Wittgenstein essentially proved that ontology is a branch of metaphysics. He does this by disregarding metaphysics for pure ontology, and logically constructing his system until it becomes evident that it is metaphysics itself. "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent" is the crux of his proof by contradiction, as he cannot "speak" his message, only "show" it.

>implying I haven't

How do you expect me to understand my husbando Stanley Cavell without Witty?

Hegel won

From ยง79 of the Investigations:

>Should it be said that I'm using a word whose meaning I don't know, and so am talking nonsense? - Say what you please, so long as it does not prevent you from seeing how things are. (And when you see that, there will be some things that you won't say.)

Was this a threat?

What on earth are you blathering about? Ontology has been a branch of metaphysics since Aristotle.

He thought he won, then later realized he hadn't and knocked over the pieces, as you say.

>>Should it be said that I'm using a word whose meaning I don't know, and so am talking nonsense? - Say what you please, so long as it does not prevent you from seeing how things are. (And when you see that, there will be some things that you won't say.)

jesus.

He's definitely circlejerked over way too hard considering he didn't do anything important. I guess he's one of those guys that makes people feel something special for liking him

Didn't he end Philosophy and basically advocate Zen?

He wouldn't be read today if he had some bog standard Anglo name like Johnson. Part of the appeal is that people like saying 'Wittgenstein'. This is why most "important" recent philosophers have weirdo names like Kripke, Chalmers, Quine, Frege. Never a Jones or a Baldwin.

i think youre misusing the term language game. it is not meant to reference a specific discipline, or its jargon or anything like that. have you read anything about him? usually that is the first misconception that is clarified.

Well he seems to use language-games to refer to discrete examples of particular things we can do with language to demonstrate a theory or compare its implications with how we actually use language. He did however seem to consider philosophy a relatively autonomous misuse of language whose sole function thru history has been to fuck up out understanding of the world and alienate us from a form of life. It may not be a bad idea to speak of his characterisation of philosophy traditionally understood by analogy to a limited language game.

well youd be legitimating it by doing that. im not sure that was his intention, even if i guess technically you could do it. itd be an unwittgensteinian use of wittgenstein. well enough, thats what 99.9% of his readers do.

If you consider philosophy a language game then he has clearly won.

I'm very grateful for the existance of the Philosophy in 90 minutes series.
90 minute roundup per major philosopher. For someone like me who is afraid of touching books, this was a Godsend.

Is anyone able to recommend other audio series for philosophy? I'd be very grateful.

filthy.

>Philosophy in 90 minutes series

What. Do you have a link? I'm very skeptical of this.

Strikes me as more of a "Those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know" thing than a threat

More specifically, he thought that philosophical problems were nonsense that could be "solved" (dissolved) through language games that would show the dissimilarities between things (since we're always "craving the general") and demystify us from thinking the philosophical problems are saying something profound.

What?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_90_Minutes_series
my.mixtape.moe/kgmvik.mp3

Thanks, do you have links to the others?

I could upload them all, but just grab a torrent from KAT.

Again, if anyone has more Philosophy audio to share, I'd be grateful.
Especially a roundup of core ideas in an easy to understand way.