Spend 20 years avoiding Wittgenstein because I think he's some final boss of philosophy

I wouldn't say it had nothing to do with it lmao, the kid got knocked out unconscious, you'd be deluded to think it isn't possible that it had an affect

He was a murderer? Jesus.

No, he hit a lot of the kids (not that I agree with it) and it can't be said the boy died from his treatment.

Although, he did kill men in the war so I guess you can say yes, he was a murderer in a sense. Depending on the law of the land.

>you'd be deluded to think it isn't possible that it had an affect
He died like a year later. Certainly didn't beat him unconscious. I doubt he had any effect whatsoever.

>the kid got knocked out unconscious
He was sick before and Wittgenstein didn't know about it. He didn't "beat him unconscious", and it's clear from everything I read W had nearly nothing to do with his death.

Do you think Witt really regretted it :)?

was probs rock solid during the entire affair

Idk. His dad probably kicked the shit out of him when he was a kid.

do u think his dad buttfucked him? according to freud there was a lot of incest among rich kikes at the time

He was probably just a regular guy, now he has been immortalised as a figure akin to God because of the plebeians at Cambridge who admired him due to his wealth.

When did you realize history is nonsense?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

>all bachelors are unmarried

damn wittgenstein so insightful!

Holy shit your head's in your ass!

A shitton of primary school teachers beat their students, and their parents would probably also beat their kids for getting beat by the teacher. Witty wasn't special for beating children.

Now, beating children off is another matter. Guy was totes gay.

And he was also a great philosopher. OP seemed to expect that reading him would be like divine revelation or something, rather than the quite mundane affair philosophy actually is.

>>And he was also a great philosopher.

Prove it, using logic.

*unsheathes poker*

what.... did you said..... about me????

not this guy but I want to intereject.
I think the sublimity of witty is that his ideas doesn't makes you awe with inspiration but that they were so plain in sight to the point that you could not believe that you haven't thought about it.
I think this is why people thinks that he is just stating the obvious or a utter of sack of shit. His thoughts are so subtle that you can no longer call it as his philosophy.

>Investigations is exact same thing, just read Heidegger

You just destroyed the credibility of your post by recommending Heidegger.

Some people think their is a lot of crossover.

There is a lot of cross-over and Heidegger is, ironically, much clearer in his presentation.

>cross-over
This isn't a correction, you smarmy bum sniffer.

That's the dumbest post I've ever read on Veeky Forums.

Personal joke.

Nice!

lol, people don't know this?

Don't forget his lol so randumb ducks.

1) If the sky is blue, Wittgenstein was a great philosopher.
2) The sky is blue.
3) [1, 2] Wittgenstein was a great philosopher.

BOOM ROASTED.

They're both serious candidates for the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, it would be weird if there weren't a little cottage industry devoted to 'exploring' 'links' 'between' their work.

>according to freud there was a lot of incest among rich kikes at the time
care to share your source?

>implying Jews would ever allow Heidegger to ever be recognized as the genius he is
Not going to happen. He will, unfairly, be denigrated as some second rate thinker who sought to make himself the Philosopher General of the Nazi state. Sad, but Jew.

>Not going to happen
>I have literally no idea what I'm talking about but I generalise from the very sound first principles bequeathed to me by /pol/

Not him, but according to Freud, at any rate for some duration of his career, there was a lot of incest among literally everybody at all times, so 'among rich kikes' and 'at the time' are really just unnecessary specifications.

From Russell -
>The main issue for philosophers and historians is to decide how much these sympathies could have influenced his philosophy itself. The subject should always be brought into consideration when discussing Heidegger
Did you get that last part? "The subject should always be brought into consideration". Heidegger will never, ever be discussed critically without referencing his politics. It will always be dragged up to denigrate him.
You are the one who knows nothing.

>Hitting kids is bad
>Corporal punishment is bad

God, I want wait for the shit to hit the fan when the offspring of all these Nu-Males and Feminists grow up.

hooooly fuck i've literally never read anything from russell that wasn't pleb as hell

he's like a fucking redditor, why is he famous?

>From Russell

Ah yes I'd quite forgotten that Russell is the primary go-to authority for determining academic syllabi.

But then again:
>His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy. They have also had an impact far beyond philosophy, for example in architectural theory (see e.g., Sharr 2007), literary criticism (see e.g., Ziarek 1989), theology (see e.g., Caputo 1993), psychotherapy (see e.g., Binswanger 1943/1964, Guignon 1993) and cognitive science (see e.g., Dreyfus 1992, 2008; Wheeler 2005; Kiverstein and Wheeler 2012).
>Published in 1927, Being and Time is standardly hailed as one of the most significant texts in the canon of (what has come to be called) contemporary European (or Continental) Philosophy. It catapulted Heidegger to a position of international intellectual visibility and provided the philosophical impetus for a number of later programmes and ideas in the contemporary European tradition, including Sartre's existentialism, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, and Derrida's notion of ‘deconstruction’. Moreover, Being and Time, and indeed Heidegger's philosophy in general, has been presented and engaged with by thinkers such as Dreyfus (e.g., 1990) and Rorty (e.g., 1991a, b) who work somewhere near the interface between the contemporary European and the analytic traditions.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

But yeah, Heidegger's totally this anonymous fuck-nobody because Jews.

I'll tell you what, I'll make you a deal. You keep on being an ill-informed fuckwit who enjoys opining on matters he knows literally nothing about, and I'll just ignore that. Sound good?

>links article that he thinks helps his argument
>the word Nazi appears 29 times
>article says this
"However, given his deliberate, albeit arguably short-lived, integration of Nazi ideology with the philosophy of Being (see above), a few all-too-brief comments on the relationship between Heidegger's politics and his philosophical thought are necessary. (For more detailed evidence and discussion, as well as a range of positions on how we should interpret and respond to this relationship, see e.g., Farias 1989; Neske and Kettering 1990; Ott 1993; Pattison 2000; Polt 1999; Rockmore 1992; Sluga, 1993; Wolin 1990, 1993; Young 1997). There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme."
Dude is "seminal", but demonised. You lose, buddy.

>You lose, buddy.

No, I win. I do not only win the specific claim that Heidegger is indeed widely feted (that was incontrovertibly proven by my last post), but, thanks to your assist, I now win the general claim that his having been a member of the Nazi party has not proved an impediment to this at all, contra your ill-informed blatherings on the matter.

See? That's how stupid you are. You post things that you think support your position, when they actually destroy it. Go learn a trade, friend.

>Go learn a trade, friend.
No need to, when you mother pays me to fuck her every weekend.

And that's just about all you can muster, isn't it. Unsurprising.

2/10 bait, the last line made it obvious, too bad

Obvious bait because of the last line.
2/10

Sorry, thought the first post hadn't worked

>things I don't like are "bait!" I don't know how to post!

How are you liking Veeky Forums so far? Remember, you can't upvote or downvote here.

Someone please give a serious refutation of the OP. Talk about the importance of Witgenstein's work

Kek.
Anyway, the last phrase is clearly bait, it has:
-CAPS
-gratuitous insults
-fallacious generalizations
-begins by saying it isn't bait

t.triggered analytic

What OP has managed to articulate is an incoherent mishmash of vague English and Veeky Forums lingo. How do you give a refutation to gobbledygook?

This thread, and the posts therein, is a clear sign that the quality of Veeky Forums has yet again gone to the shitter. The posts read like Veeky Forums and /b/ hybrids.

Sage.

Dude philosophical investigations was pretty fucking continental

1 OP's post is all that is bait.
1.1 The post is the totality of baits, not of meaning.
1.11 The post is determined by the bait, and by it being all the bait.
[...]
Whereof one cannot shitpost, thereof one must be silent.

He destroyed Aristotle's theory of language,and put both metaphysics and logical positivism into question.
You won't find many philosophers who refuted their earlier works.

How in any way did he destroy Aristotle's theory of language....

1) Philosophy of Language didn't exist as a field before Frege.
2) Aristotle didn't explicitly put forth any particular philosophy on language.

You're talking about a couple of passages/excerpts of St. Augustine.

3) It didn't put metaphysics and logical positivism into question because the Tractatus itself was exactly those two things. Tractatus was the chief inspiration of the Viennese logical positivism that came after.

Do some fucking research next time.

20 years that you knew about Wittgenstein? How old are you?

>) It didn't put metaphysics and logical positivism into question because the Tractatus itself was exactly those two things. Tractatus was the chief inspiration of the Viennese logical positivism that came after.

... yeah, but then there was the Investigations etc.

>no one will do this
>but they'll keep talking
>not following wittgenstein's dictum

Nobody's going to spoonfeed you, do the reading yourself

>You're talking about a couple of passages/excerpts of St. Augustine.

Thank you, my bad .I don't know why, but in my mind, this passage , right at the beginning, was associated with Aristotle rather than Augustine.

A new insight is often like a new world of pain. Your rage at the pervasiveness of these morons will only drive you towards insanity, until you realise you have to change your reactions to survive. At this point the only solution is to treat them like retarded children that they are. Welcome to Lilliput.

get a brain moran

it's dark outside

Not on the other side of the world, it's not. Sky's always blue somewhere.

Sorry to interefere, but I'm not sure how this would disqualify is argument. As in contrast to your claim of his brief but rather serious intertwining with the nsdap having no impact on the reception of his works he checked the very source you quoted. In respective article according to his statement he found the term 'nazi' to be employed 29 times. This of course creates a rather shady context for his works of that time. So I'd say your claim is being contradicted by some quite striking evidence, that he delivered. "You lose, buddy" alone surely does not refute anything.
So now you two can discuss whether its "because Jews" or some other bullshit.

>he found the term 'nazi' to be employed 29 times. This of course creates a rather shady context for his works of that time. So I'd say your claim is being contradicted by some quite striking evidence, that he delivered.

Well, you'd be wrong. The conversation in context:
>[Wittgenstein and Heidegger are] both serious candidates for the most influential philosopher of the 20th century
>implying Jews would ever allow Heidegger to ever be recognized as the genius he is

See? I claim that Heidegger is among the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Fucky the /pol/tard, despite manifestly knowing nothing (and I mean LITERALLY NOTHING) about the subject, objects. He claims that Heidegger's reputation has been irreparably damaged and that his genius has been suppressed and denied.

Fucky the /pol/tard examines the evidence and breathlessly reports that the word 'Nazi' is used 29 times in an SEP article on him. Both Fucky and you seem to uncritically accept this as clear evidence that his genius has been suppressed and denied. Well, it's fucking not. Let the entire rest of the SEP article consist of NOTHING BUT the word 'Nazi' repeated 10,000 times, and so long as the article also contains:
>Being and Time is standardly hailed as one of the most significant texts in the canon of (what has come to be called) contemporary European (or Continental) Philosophy
and
>His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy. They have also had an impact far beyond philosophy, for example in architectural theory (see e.g., Sharr 2007), literary criticism (see e.g., Ziarek 1989), theology (see e.g., Caputo 1993), psychotherapy (see e.g., Binswanger 1943/1964, Guignon 1993) and cognitive science (see e.g., Dreyfus 1992, 2008; Wheeler 2005; Kiverstein and Wheeler 2012).

... then the game is over and Fucky has lost.

So now you can sit down and have a think about whether or not you should just keep your trap shut if you can't outpace an actual /pol/tard in terms of following a discussion.

>Refute my opinions please!

"You're wrong".

Seriously, why is Veeky Forums full of people with strong value judgments but no content? Why can't someone who has read Wittgenstein say why he's important in a few sentences?

>Why can't someone who has read Wittgenstein say why he's important in a few sentences?

He's important because he wrote a work that provided inspiration for a short-lived but influential school of thought, inspired in its own right numerous rethinkings of several sub-schools of thought and then worked on material that in part refuted much of that earlier work and in itself went on to inspire numerous rethinkings of several sub-schools of thought and endeavours even outside of philosophy itself.