People still write Philosophy after this book

please stop

Is this your book, lmao?

Read that book and you will be posting threads about it everyday

I wish

The funny thing posts like this is that like 75% of analytic philosophy is people pissed off and Witty and trying to prove him wrong

(The other 25% is people reinforcing what he already said)

op!! this is my favorite w book!! i read it every year. have you read zettel? been on my list forever but my interest in "seeing-as" sort of got me sidetracked with Chinese thought for a couple of years

what are you trying to accomplish?

op is a faggot.

thats like saying you dont need to eat anymore after you have studied the digestive system.

you can, however, change your diet for a healthier one.

No, I haven't read Zettel yet, will probably read Culture and Value sometime this week.

Would you like to read it together and marry me?

I find it funny that Witty reached Hume's conclusions about causality after claiming he would never read Hume because "I'd get irritated at all his mistakes", to paraphrase.

not his argument at all, at least read as much as the wikipedia page...

C&V is very good, and it's important to keep the chronology in mind. I've heard lecturers go on 20 minute rants about it because they think it's the rape of Wittgenstein. After the 5th or 6th time I straight up asked why a little collection of his interesting thoughts buried in his notes turned a bunch of big bad professors into little pussies. He tried giving me some crap about how if they're out of context and I told him that in the time you all have wasted of mine this year ranting about it you could have written a book putting it in context.

I also asked where the fuck else he expected that we put those thoughts worth publishing but not substantial enough for a book. It's worth the read but obviously it shouldn't be one's first encounter with him.

thefoundationpress.com/thefoundationforexploration.html

> The greatest and most important organization of thought in the history of our species. Human history will forever be classified as this: Before-Foundation, After-Foundation.
>Complete understanding of mankind's relationship with free will, powerlessness, and meaninglessness. Complete understanding of the sexual nature of man and woman. Complete understanding of what it takes to actualize society's potential.

Ahahaha what the hell is this garbage? Are you trying to start a cult?

What are any of us here trying to accomplish? The sharing of good pieces of writing to better ourselves, help each other on our individual paths, and help us enjoy and understand existence.

I quoted RFGB (my all time favorite, actually, OC is second) more than I did PI in my paper on PI (I wrote on seeing-as)

I have read tons of philosophy but still don't have a handle on the causality/inductive-deductive/true belief conversations in the field. Is there something I can read to fix this?

I have written multiple emails to the Wittgenstein Archive and they never fucking reply to me, I don't know why.

Sorry if I seem like an idiot but what does RFGB stand for? Remarks on the Foundations of what? I probably know what you are talking about but can't see it.

Have you read Remarks on Colour or studied any colour philosophy by any chance?

FOR HE IS MAD

>tfw people stop replying because I said something stupid

Remarks on Frazier's Golden Bough.

And I haven't really done too much work with color, I jumped pretty quickly from Wittgenstein to Perspectivalism to nondualism

are you asking how to get started on Wittgenstein, or asking how to get a good grounding in philosophy?

or just about those specific issues? (forgot that option, sorry)

Want to meet together at his grave and read the Gospel in Brief with me?

haha, man you really are a fan. (I am too :D I keep my 2nd edition copy of PI in my father's old bible case) Have you read Monk's biography of him? It's been on my list forever but I haven't really come back and spent a lot of time with him since I finished my thesis. I spend all my time with Chinese writers now and really would love to get back to Ludwig some time soon, I was thinking Zettel since that apparently furthers the lines of inquiry I really spent time with (perspectives, 2ndary meaning, seeing-as and such)

I really should reread RFGB sometime soon, I think it's his most important work to the extent that it really does look at the way people used to see the world before the west really stepped out in its own. It's also, I think, a transformative line of inquiry for him that affects his broader shift from the tractatus to PI. I highly recommend it, it's short. It's in that red collection "Philosophical Occasions", that and the bit right around it called "Philosophy" are crucial imo

Philosophy is something we can't NOT do. Writing down thoughts and sharing them is generous and conducive to our collective psychological evolution.

If you honestly think Wittgenstein wanted to end phisilophising you are a retard.

I have read Monk's Biography and Rhees' but I hate the biographies because I'm not a fan of people who obsess over Wittgenstein's personal life (no offence if you do).

I care more about his work which has literally changed my life and do not have much time for people like Monk who only care about how interesting a character Wittgenstein was. Not to say he wasn't interesting but I've noticed that people who tend to obsess over the man rather than his work tend to not actually understand him in the slightest.

When you say it looks at the world before the west, do you mean forms of life as a ritualistic practice?

I wouldn't underestimate Wittgenstein's seriousness on this claim. But it's important to keep in mind what he means by "philosophizing." He keeps in mind what kind of form of living philosophy is throughout his work, in my take. But I do not think that he expected to end the philosophical tradition by any means. He pioneers a more organic method for this very reason in his "later period" (which he lays out in "Philosophy", portions of which make their way into PI).

How is Rhees'? I agree as regards obsession, but I agree with Monk that unlike most philosophers, Wittgenstein's life is more relevant to his work, at least inasmuch as the way he lived his convictions is quite evident. But his life and work ought to generally be kept at a distance when evaluating his work, I agree.

His life IS unusually interesting for a more rigor-oriented philosopher though.

>When you say it looks at the world before the west, do you mean forms of life as a ritualistic practice?

So in it, he's writing down his thoughts about the way Frazier approaches/interprets 'primitive' cultures in his famous "The Golden Bough." To some extent it's also his own stab at saying something about other societies' forms of living. I think the most important angle there is not his critique of Frazier but actually the new approach he's pioneering for speaking about what a practice means/'feels' (significance in the fullest sense, the one we encounter in our lives) when we speak about any form of living, let alone a foreign one.

So yeah, you can say that he talks about the significance of rituals, but I think the approach he develops in it as well as the critique of what William W. Quinm Jr., Esq. (lol @ name) calls the "chauvinistic perspective of primitive culture" have much more general implications.

he did want to put a stop to it in the professional sense tho. and that to engage in real philosophy.

but yeah, philosophy is a form of a natral tendency of the mind.

Where are you from that you have such an interest in Chinese philosophy?

Are you by any chance a Chinese girl who can be my gf, srs question?

i read a lotta part 2 and then studied a bunch of religion

Please answer my second question, I am so lonely after reading Wittgenstein lmao

i am not an asian girl, no

Alright, want to meet up and kill ourselves at a church instead then?

Are you a sinoboo girl?
A passable looking sinoboo boy also serves

i am not a girl

fuck off she's mine

So what, he says notions of knowledge and existence are true when they make more visceral sense than skeptical approaches, and that 'seeming' empiricism replaces rigor. That is not profound, fuck Witty

Just those topics really

No, you have to really read him to understand him.

He literally *kicks* the chair from under you, you no longer are troubled by the restraints and confusions of philosophy.

Reading Wittgenstein literally breaks one free.

not him but thats not entirely accurate. wittgenstein just shows you that the door of your prison has always been open, but you are the one who has to stand up and open it. its no use just stayin inside knowing it is open.

Are you literally arguing metaphors right now?

Has anybody actually read Wittgenstein here? Or are you only capable of embarrassing exultations about how he *kicks* the chair out from under you?

What the fuck does that mean?

he once said he was trying to show the fly the way out of the flybottle. he never said he wanted to grab it and take it out.

That phrase is literally a phrase from Wittgenstein about kicking the ladder out from under you after you climb up it.

He used this phrase because he recognised that his own philosophy was meaningless to one who had climbed the ladder and understood it.

I think he used it when he wrote the Tractatus.

He later changed the phrase in the Philosopher Investigations to someone who is in a room full of doors that can't be opened when an open door exists right in front of him. This was used to illustrate how Philosophers act.

it's more than that, i think. also, a lot of philosophy ends up being a rigorous way to say something that sounds common sense or obvious

he's examining knowing as an activity rather than as an abstract idea. a lot of philosophers are inclined to treat it more propositionally or conceptually rather than as an activity or form of living. even when he examines things propositionally he does not forget to make it about the way we really speak and live instead of some abstraction or idealization. and the western tradition is full of really smart people falling into that trap time and time again. his method is like a boat you don't need after learning how to swim in order to get across, you sort of need to internalize it

i think his fascination with the activity of learning really speaks volumes to this

you can use analogies to argue if they illustrate your point, the ancients do it all the time. look at what Wittgenstein says about his use of "game"

its also too easy to lose your footing with that and so those two better be careful

a couple of people who only know the rudimentary stuff you hear out of context and a couple of people who actually have

>implying

I've rarely hated a book as much as that one.

It's okay. It's not meant for brainlets like you.