What would now dead philosophers think of the 21st century?

Everything is word-games, I've got something in this box that I'm referring to as a "Beetle", no, you can't see it, that's part of the experiment.
You cannot be sure if when I call this thing in the box a "Beetle" that both you and I mean the same thing by "Beetle".

Words words words.

Also, he fought for the Germans in WWI then went to live in Britain as a published Philosophy writer, as his naive work (which he later totally recanted) impressed some nobs over there.

>everything is word games.
so he was excessively critical of language and how deficient it is?

what about a man brought up in the wilderness who doesn't speak?

when you say "everything is word games" is there a broader principle underlying this statement or what?

the beetle things is petty stupid desu because it is obvious to anyone that words are given meaning by consensus. the consensus/majority on what the word "beetle" refers to is taught to us in school. so if you don't let me look in the box i still will either know what is in it or that you're a contrarian cunt who decided to invent his own interpretation of the word beetle.

really what's the big deal here?

He basically proposed that most of the great unsolvable philosophical debates of human life were just communication errors where neither person had a complete understanding of what the other was trying to communicate.

He did a little work on discussing non-linguistic creatures, think he used a lion in one example, and it's sense of self - the lion has no concept that it is a "Lion".

This is all just stuff I remember offhand from Phil 101, I think some would consider him something of an anti-philosopher from these stances, though I'm not sure if this is his stance pre-chucking out all his naive work of post facto.

or post facto*

i think greek philosophers would be mind blown at the very concept of the internet

shit is fucking wack yo

>Wittgenstein would laugh at our appeal to scientism
Except positivists have been BTFO as hard as anyone ever has been ever in philosophy. We are so much less scientismist than at the time of Wiggenstein when people like Stevenson and Ayer were taking seriously.

That's one part of quite a wide ranging thought in Philosophical Investigations that you've misunderstood. Yes you don't know what the nature of the thing in the box is, but that's unimportant. All that matters in terms of language use is that we refer to it as "beetle". What is "beetle"? The thing in the box.

The underlying theme in PI is something like a linguistic phenomenology that undermines solispsism (in other words to even begin to have ideas like "I think therefore I am" we must first have a foot in language, I learn to talk therefore I have a possibility of saying "I think therefore I am").

The beetle is more a reference to the ding-an-sich tho.

except youre wrong

scientism is at an all time high right now

the fb page i fucking love science has millions of followers

if u dare to suggest a normie that maybe his realistic worldview isnt the truth hell go nuts and bolts

Frogs

>We are so much less scientismist than at the time of Wiggenstein when people like Stevenson and Ayer were taking seriously.

>What is Bill Nye
>What is Logic and Reason
>What is Atheism+
>What is STEM > All

Kierkegaard was always depressed.

Nietzsche, by definition, would not have been disappointed. He'd be patient, deeming our moral/intellectual/cultural decline to be merely the precursor to an even greater advance.

Sartre was BTFO at the time of writing, never mind now.

Foucoult would indeed be happy that post-modernism/structuralism managed to be taken so seriously.

Correct on Wittgenstein.

Derrida would deem us to be insufficiently nihilistic, but would like where we've gotten to thus far.

>a linguistic phenomenology that undermines solispsism (in other words to even begin to have ideas like "I think therefore I am" we must first have a foot in language, I learn to talk therefore I have a possibility of saying "I think therefore I am").

that is quite an interesting statement. i say that because for the first time i've come across something that undermines solipsism which i have felt to be the only tenable position to hold till now.

can you respond to: ? I genuinely feel that the beetle investigation is a trivial problem. The word "beetle" is a syntactic/symbolic signifier that has been accepted through consensus by society to make it convenient to refer to beetles. I feel like you're attaching too much importance to language/words here.

Also, are you telling me that a man born in the wilderness without contact with society or any language will be incapable of reaching a solipsistic point of view? Because I don't think so. If a man can think at all then he does possess the potential to reach the solipsistic view.

So no. you don't have to learn to talk to think "i think therefore i am" just like a lot of silent animals don't have to learn to talk to think what prey to eat.

I am beginning to suspect that wittgenstein was a naive hack.

Are you seriously suggesting them as somehow relevant at all to philosophy? Scientism and anything related has vanished from philosophy. The highpoint of that kind of thinking was during the time of Wittgenstein.

>Are you seriously suggesting them as somehow relevant at all to philosophy?

No, just culture and society - which are the masters of philosophy.

I'm pretty sure they're conflating pop culture with academia or serious philosophy

Who the fuck cares what a bunch of dead people think?

What does that even mean? That has nothing to do with the point being made.

I'm pretty sure I was doing the exact opposite of that, what with the whole drawing a distinction between them and all.

I assumed we were talking about philosophers reacting to the state of current philosophy, not society as a whole. Either way I don't think Wittgenstein would care much about the general population. His ideas have always been strongly divergent from normal people, I don't see how he would be disappointed to see it be exactly the same.

bump

This
When people rolepaly and shitpost as Plato or Socrates is funny as hell. He'd spend all his days sitting on a chair, eating whole weat and refuting the very conception of the word "pleb"

How exactly would he provide his refutation if not through language?

would Foucault be happy that the new-left discourse became the power discourse?