I want to understand wittgeinstein. Please recommend books that can help me

Ray Monk's biography of him because it explains both his life and work and the former actually helps to understand the latter

Wittgenstein regretted everything on his deathbed and converted to Christianity.

Or: How to tell which philosophers are worth "understanding"

Do not listen to any of these hacks.

None of the so called 'Wittgenstein disciples' understood his work. Each and every one of them only superficially understood what he said because they were still bewitched by Philosophy. Each and every one of them theorized on what he said rather than taking his advice and LOOKing.

Do NOT read any of these people or take any of these posters seriously, I HAVE NO DOUBT in my mind that they all too superficially understood Wittgenstein.

Simply take yourself into solitude and read his works.

Take yourself into solitude where you cannot be corrupted and read his works without interruption. Then you shall truly see, then you shall truly kick the ladder from under you.

TRUST NO ONE who claims to be an expert on Wittgenstein, for they too are charlatans and shall take you down the beaten path.

>Wittgenstein didn't understand what Wittgenstein said
Then you tell the person to read his works?

See if you actually knew wtf you were talking about you'd know that there are plenty WIttgenstein disciples that understand him fully and continue to work in his spirit without theorising, you idiot. You fucking moron.

>t you'd know that there are plenty WIttgenstein disciples that understand him fully and continue to work in his spirit without theorising, you idiot. You fucking moron.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

Post one.

Who are you going to post?

Anscombe? Rhees? Malcolm? Ramsey?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Literally none of them 'got' it.

Stanley Cavell, John McDowell, Cora Diamond, James Conant, (late) Hilary Putnam, Warren Goldfarb, Stephen Mulhall, Ray Monk, Gordon Baker, Rupert Reed, Phil Hutchinson

I only know half of these people and they are all shit!

Including Ray Monk, that fat hack!

Prove you didn't just pull all these names out of your ass.

Biographical fact of the matter is he renounced both of his major works. Not a philosopher. More like a r9k loser.

>he renounced both of his major works

No evidence of him renouncing Philosophical Investigations whatsoever.

Post proof you hack!

Cavell was the first interpreter of Witt. that emphasised the "therapy" aspect and called everyone else a hack. McDowell was the first one to side with Cavell. Baker got inspired by Cavell and went rogue from his old work with Peter Hacker, Diamond and Conant together declared and established a new reading based on the Cavell and Baker's insights. Mulhall, Monk, Reed, and Hutchinson (and loads of others) got convinced by Diamond and Conant and declared themselves disciples of that school of interpretation of Witty. They eventually even persuaded Putnam, one of the leading analytic philosophers of all time.

m8 I eat Wittgenstein scholarship for breakfast

Let's talk in private and share our ideas!

Post contact information you hack!

ALSO, I reject the 'Therapeutic' interpretation!

I reject, even, ALL interpretations.

That is to say, I reject behaviourism, therapy, skepticism, anti-skepticism.

ALL THE INTERPRETATIONS.

Try get your hands on this: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00511.x/abstract

I can't find it for free online anywhere

What is this?

Also, here's the link for it you hack!

sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00511.x

read it! It explains the different interpretations and explains why all except the therapeutic one is for hacks

I was a follower of the Therapeutic interpretation for some time but I have my own doubts now.

I have written hundreds of notes on 'On Certainty'.

I believe I have cracked the non-existent puzzle.

That is to say, I have rendered useless that which before was seen as useful.

HAAHAHHAHAHAHA

DO YOU see what I'm saying??

I shall read this article and see how it suits me.

If I do not contribute I shall kill myself hHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Here's how to understand Wittgenstein.

He is wrong.
And he is not right.

At first you were on about nothing.

Now you are on to something.

It is that any thing you know will still be a story.
But ask yourself; what makes a story useful to be believed, and can that ever be known if everything you know is just a story?

Plato got it backward: the metaphysical plane doesn't show you anything; you show it a story, and it tells you if it is useful to be believed for the intent of the story.

They way you write just shows you're a retard.

read Richard Rorty's Contingency Irony and Solidarity

Do you not claim to be a Wittgenstein expert? Why should we trust you?

Start by putting you right hand in front of your hand.

Is it there?

Are you certain?

...

FUCK OFF, RETARD.

I AM YET TO READ PLATO, WITTGENSTEIN VERY MUCH LIKED BOTH THEAETETUS AND PARMENIDES WHICH I AM YET TO INVESTIGATE.

>But ask yourself; what makes a story useful to be believed, and can that ever be known if everything you know is just a story?

YES I KNOW THIS PROBLEM VERY MUCH, BROTHER!

I have so much to say yet I CANNOT SAY IT!

Does that make sense? I can only show it??!!?

> What the fuck did you just say about Wittgenstein, you little bitch? I eat Wittgenstein scholarship for breakfast and have qritten over 9000 confirmed notes on 'On Certainty'

is Ockham worth reading?

WHY WON'T ANYONE REPLY?!?!?!

Because we are eating dinner.

You should eat some dinner.

/thread

I just read his books. Found his philosophy to be very depressing and didn't like it.

I've heard that Ray Monk's books on him are a good introduction, namely "The Duty of Genius" and "How to Read Wittgenstein."

Can I skip the tractatus and go straight for his later work or is it "essential"?

He was christian his entire life, stop trying to sound smarter than people on an anonymous imageboard.
[citation needed]
Is this bait? he's a logician, not a poet. His work is fundamentally related to his predecessors.

it depends what line of philosophy of language you're interested in. although some people argue that the schism isn't significant, imho the tractatus is about formalizing language and logical atomism, influencing the vienna circle and assosciated philosophers; while the latter is about natural language, and influenced Austin, Strawson, Searle, and so on. You could read /about/ both and figure out what you're more interested in.

which is to say i don't believe the tractatus and PI are particularly related.

This. New Wittgenstein is best Wittgenstein.

Damn. Great stuff, thanks.

Last year I studied with a fellow Wittgensteinian friend of Conant's and was totally convinced by this school. It's amazing. I'm still working through Hacker and Baker, some Diamond stuff. I'd also recommend Newton Garver and Peter Winch.