I ended up reading "Proof of an External World" and "A Defence of Common Sense" by G. E. Moore in preparation for this book as this book is a response to both Moore and Skeptics. Then I read this book and HOLY SHIT;
It is, seriously, the greatest book ever written. It COMPLETELY underpins and eradicates everything you used to believe. I'm very happy and proud that I read this book!
Thanks a lot, user!
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ditext.com
selfpace.uconn.edu
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
web.archive.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
what does he mean by 'we'll grant you all the rest'?
I have about eighty per cent confidence that this suite of OPs over the past couple months are a bot running somewhere, which has picked up on "Wittgenstein" on this board, autonomously decided to pick a work that had not been discussed much, and is measuring its ability to shape board interest in the work through repetition.
Read the rest of the book and it'll make sense.
Hint: He's speaking about the public linguistic community's ability to "grant you all the rest".
>I have about eighty per cent confidence that this suite of OPs over the past couple months are a bot running somewhere,
I'm not OP. Just a guy who saw this posted and wanted to post about it! It's really amazing!
Yeah I agree OP, definitely the greatest book ever written imho
>It COMPLETELY underpins and eradicates everything you used to believe
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that t underpins and eradicates.
never read it, user
but happy for you
You have to read it!
Thanks a lot!
exprentulence
>It COMPLETELY underpins and eradicates everything you used to believe
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
>You have to read it!
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
>It COMPLETELY underpins and eradicates everything you used to believe.
What are some examples OP?
Sorry but you'll have to read it and the previous material to get it.
I can't speak about it because once you read it, you realise a lot of things but after you realise them, you can no longer speak about them. Only be comforted in having climbed the ladder. I have kicked the ladder away and now rest on the shoulders of giants.
>people going insane over others not being able to discuss the book properly and at lengt
Good, glad to see the board culture is improving. That is a huge problem.
Also, let me see if I can get a get
>That is a huge problem.
This book is the book that ends all books, friend.
Once you read it, you can't speak about it, only recommend it.
Stop trivializing something very important, retard.
>Stop trivializing something very important
Oh, believe me. This book is very important. It has changed everything I believe.
>say it's really hard to refute its points
>can't explain any of its points
Sorry, friend but you can't get it until you read it all alone in quiet after having read the pre-requisites which are 'Proof of an External World' and 'A Defence of Common Sense' by Moore.
If you want to read the greatest book ever written then just side aside a couple of hours.
I too was like you until I chose to read the OP.
my god you are retarded lol
That's a reddit response if I've ever seen one.
i understand your dejection but that is truly not a response for this board desu lol
>Posts something
>Refuses to talk about it
>Posts anyways
How can we talk about it if you haven't read it?
You won't be able to understand my interpretation or understanding because you will be unable to understand the nuances of what I say.
Read the book and the prerequisites and open your mind, brother.
shut up already and let this thread die
Already did...
Then you know as I do, brother, then you know as I do...
The whole concept of grammatical propositions it's sketchy af.
Also... The argument against the skeptic doubt it's insufficient, there's been a lot said about it already...
its basically the attempt to make an axiomatic frame out of language. Hard and noble task, but he didn't quite make it
Nice try, friend, nice try...
>its basically the attempt to make an axiomatic frame out of language. Hard and noble task, but he didn't quite make it
WRONG
FUCK OFF, YOU DIDN'T GET IT.
You seriously didn't get it. That is NOT what he is doing.
>not saying how its insufficient
>Read the book and the prerequisites and open your mind, brother.
Don't listen to him.
Wittgenstein is NOT advocating an axiomatic form of language. That poster is thinking of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus which Wittgenstein wrote during WWI but rejected (debated hotly) in his later years.
He is NOT doing that.
Wittgenstein is criticising both Moore AND the skeptics.
ya he is
Stop shitposting and go away!!!
na ty
wittgenstein is dumb!!!1!!!1one!!
what previous material?
"Proof of an External World" and "A Defence of Common Sense" both by G. E. Moore
Moore wrote those two works (very short) in response to Skeptics.
Wittgenstein wrote "On Certainty" in response to both skeptics and Moore's two books.
Which skeptics? It doesnt seem like it would make much sense to only read one of the people he is replying to.
Moore was attacking Skepticism in general.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ditext.com
selfpace.uconn.edu
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
web.archive.org
Skepticism has a long history so it would not be conducive for me to explain in its entirety what he was attacking. All I can do is provide the links above in that exact order from top to bottom. They should be sufficient enough in giving you an understanding to tackle 'On Certainty'. If you still have trouble, I suggest reading 'Philosophical Investigations' in order to understand the nuances of Wittgenstein's thoughts.
Where would Hume or Sextus Empiricus fall into this?
Hume doesn't necessarily fall into 'On Certainty' but he does fall into Skepticism and 'Philosophical Investigations' (to a certain extent). Saul Kripke published a book on a particular passage of Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations' where he claimed Wittgenstein pointed out a 'Rule-Following Paradox'. A sort of 'Linguistic Problem of Induction'. I have provided some links below including a link to an excellent short video series on the topic:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
Wittgenstein (in my opinion and of many others) is NOT a skeptic (I do believe he brings up the rule-following paradox). 'On Certainty' to an extent displays that he is not. Wittgenstein (I believe) is criticising both Moore and Skeptics alike. That is to say, he is explaining how both groups are acting upon the same bewitchment, that being the bewitchment of Philosophy.
forgot to link
Thanks, which work provides the best example of a skeptics argument?
What are the best criticisms of Wittgenstien
Well, scepticism has a long history. Perhaps you should read 'Meditations' by Descartes followed by 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' by David Hume.
Before reading those, you should probably read 'Scepticism: A Very Short Introduction' by Oxford University Press.
I would highly recommend Hume, he is the most intelligent of 'skeptics' but he does offer a skeptical solution. I don't like Descartes although he is considered the founder of 'Modern' philosophy.
With regards to Wittgenstein, I must say, I have yet to find someone who adequately criticises him. The people who are most famous for doing so are 'Ernest Gellner' in his book 'Words and Things' and an assortment of others. Try the criticism section of Wikipedia or look at profiles of so-called 'New Wittgensteinians', click on their profiles and look at the criticism section.
>he is the most intelligent of 'skeptics' but he does offer a skeptical solution
what is his skeptic solution, and is that video you posted about the 'rule following paradox'? I will check it out now to find out, but if its not, can you say anything about that?
Saul Kripke offers a skeptical solution to the paradox he believes exists which is sort of related to Hume but is about language and Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations'
Hume's solution is to a problem he discovered, that is the problem of induction. You should read the text itself and the complementary sparknotes of 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'.
Thanks, will do, but can you just describe the paradox?
your really shit at convincing others of things
go try sticking your dick in your own anus you religious fanatic scum!
It's better if you just read the articles I linked in order and the videos.
Thanks, was planning on tackling Hume before all of this. Should I read the treatise first?
The treatise contain two other works which are an attack on religion and another one I can't remember including the enquiry.
'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' is an updated version of the one that appears in the Treatise so read the updated version.
>muh words
wittgenstein is my ideology
same
OP: You realize underpins means to support something, rather than to undermine something, right? Right? Uhhh. . . .
The use of Underpin in the OP means an action, to underpin and THEN to eradicate, retard
.4 All propositions are of equal value.
>yet not treating them as a singularity (illogical: distinct things cannot be ‘equal’ or ‘singular’)
.41-2
>using the words 'sense', 'world', 'value', .. as if they refer to transcendental (there is nothing beyond the universe by definition) subjects
.42
>[X] is transcendental (again)
Wouldn't Wittgenstein like to think?
A comprehensive history of "analytic philosophy".
>1. All philosophy has been analytic, from the beginning of philosophy (quite simply because that's what all philosophy, indeed all thought, consists of: analysis).
>2. Nietzsche arrives on the scene. Anglo-Saxons do not understand his analysis, ergo it is not analysis. Also, he made fun of them repeatedly for not being able to understand him. This at least they understood.
>3. Anglo-Saxons: "Screw the priggish continentals: We will make our OWN philosophy." (= "The continentals are mean to us, so we won't play with them anymore.")
>4. Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".
>5. No one pays attention to the Anglo-Saxons' illegible rubbish, while book sales and star status of the continentals (many of whom are charlatans indeed but at least not boring) are soaring.
>6. Finally Rorty turns around and proclaims the end of "analytic philosophy". "I wish I'd read less of our autistic bullshit and more novels instead."
>7. According to the Anglo-Saxons, then, novels are the culmination and ultimate expression of philosophy.
>8. And that's where Anglo-Saxon "analytic philosophy" stands to this day. Nothing more than a gigantic reaction movement to Nietzsche calling them names and making fun of them.
What’s attractive about looking at all philosophers in part suspiciously and in part mockingly is not that we find again and again how innocent they are — how often and how easily they make mistakes and get lost, in short, how childish and child-like they are — but that they are not honest enough in what they do, while, as a group, they make huge, virtuous noises as soon as the problem of truthfulness is touched on, even remotely. Collectively they take up a position as if they had discovered and arrived at their real opinions through the self-development of a cool, pure, god-like disinterested dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of all ranks, who are more honest than they are and more stupid with their talk of “inspiration”—), while basically they defend with reasons sought out after the fact an assumed principle, an idea, an “inspiration,” for the most part some heart-felt wish which has been abstracted and sifted. They are all advocates who do not want to call themselves that.— and very remote from the courage of conscience which would admit this, even this, to itself, very remote from that brave good taste which would concede as much, whether to warn an enemy or friend, or whether to mock themselves as an expression of their own high spirits.
>Actually quoting the Tractatus which Wittgenstein rejected
Embarrassing rebuttal.
Can you distill this post into any point/s you made in it? I dont know what you are saying, to me, trying to say (possibly successfully: it seems there may be something interesting here, but I dont know what you are trying to get at).