So you haven't read the greatest book ever written because...?

>He ended what no other man could.

I don't know about that lol

The poor-man's Kierkegaard.
That saying, why haven't YOU read THE greatest book of all time?

Does anyone know where the book cover generator is?

And continental philosophy is like listening to your friend who just got high as a kite ramble incoherently about his "deep" ideas.

what are they doing on this image?

Not even Soren's best

nullk.github.io/penguin.html

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone telling me about ONE single idea Wittgenstein had. All I remember is that he talks about a big dog, in his lecture on Ethics. A very big dog. His bullshit should not even be published.

>I haven't read him therefore I can criticise

Really makes me think

I read the lecture about the dog. Lecture on ethics.
Also, the more you grow old and wise, the more your realize that your preconceived ideas prove to be true. This is also the reason why I wouldn't read any Eckhart Tolle, he's ugly as fuck.

>I read the lecture about the dog. Lecture on ethics.

Cringe, this isn't remotely close to the wider Wittgenstein and youtube lecture is from a film made about him, not his actual opinions.

Please just read Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty.

>youtube lecture is from a film made about him, not his actual opinions.
I really wonder what youtube has to do with it.
Anyway yeah I may get one of these but I find it sad that nobody ever explains what Wittgenstein claims, what he 'discovered', what makes him interesting.

many of the core ideas are similar to heidegger in many ways

meaning is founded in intersubjectivity and not in private transcendentalism, being (and what we know) is revealed and developed through language, therefore anti-foundationalism, anti-cartesian/anti-transcendental

much of what wittgenstein talks about can be expressed in other philosophical idiom but he is interesting because he seems to have put it all together himself, in his own very distinct way of seeing things and without adapting or twisting existing elaborate systems of thought, and if read carefully he's almost a self-contained manifesto for doing philosophy, so people who study wittgenstein deeply tend to be wittgensteinians

You can't just explain it, idiot, it requires you to read it because it won't make sense in a Veeky Forums post.

The argument start from the very base of what we know or how we learn as children and moves upwards from there. It cannot be condensed into a Veeky Forums post.

you just convinced me he's as overrated as old Russell

I can't help but think of this as being pretty obvious. Maybe it's better to read Wittgenstein before reading other/later authors. I find it harder to grab the meaning when an author sets himself apart from the 'tradition', because you can never know if what he says (let's say simply an important term he uses) has to be understood in the same meaning as another author. It's like... let's say a guy keeps using the term "a priori" without ever refering to Kant, that would be annoying and an obstacle to understanding. Anyway I'll have to try the Investigations some day.

>meaning is founded in intersubjectivity and not in private transcendentalism
this is really interesting, is it implied its 'likely' 'impossible' for a singular being to arise and than 'found meaning' on its own, to itself, that alone is impossible, and than further more, it would be impossible for that meaning to at all relate to Objective Reality, any instance or particulate of Truth, this hypothetical singular being would (be unable, alone) be able to 'create activity, which would be known as 'meaning', and anywhere from 0.1 to 100% be absolutely identically congruently cohere, with Absolute True Objective Real-Time Reality (and its Ever Realm of Potential)

>you just convinced me he's as overrated as old Russell

Fuck off, retard.

He blew the fuck out of Russell.

>Not knowing Wittgenstein is Schopenhauer on minimalism

OP The last thread 404d before I could save those youtube links you posted for that user, can you repost them?
Its kind of Ironic considering Wittgenstein was famous for not reading works of other philosophers.

See

That argument is incredibly rudimentary to anyone who knows anything about Wittgenstein.

>the greatest book ever written
>not ISOLT

>famous for not reading works of other philosophers
didn't know at all, but that's significant, thanx
>youtube links
dunno if it's what you're talking about but some guy had posted this pastebin.com/9pUqMKnk , which contains several youtube vids

Also I finally ordered On certainty. If it sucks, OP's mom will die in her sleep, take my word.

It creates a breach in the obscurantism and actually gives a person information to consider if its worth further investigation or not.

i anticipated this reply kek, i study under one of the leading formulators of the therapeutic interpretation, don't be a pedant

Thanks for the pastebin link.

>i study under one of the leading formulators of the therapeutic interpretation

Cavell? You being serious? Please go on...

Yes, that's the pastebin, I created. I am yet to include figures such as Putnam and Cavell but the pastebin will soon be updated and cleaned (made more linear). It is very shit right now when taking all things into consideration. Including the New Wittgenstein thinkers.

Is David Pears book on Wittgenstien worthwhile?

Apologies, I haven't read that book but I just looked it up and would probably advise not reading it. I know it's stupid to advise such a thing when I haven't read it but there are more conducive texts on Wittgenstein out there.

What is a good measure of a books validity on Wittgenstein?

Hm, that's a good question which probably couldn't be answered without introducing my own biases.

I would say watch out for people who only have a surface-level understanding and give basic extrapolations without taking you through a process. Many people who read Wittgenstein will just stop at "Meaning is use!" or "Language is a tool!" but never go beyond and form more lucid arguments.

I would say, stick to people who take you on a journey, a process of opening doors or allowing you to realise that there may not be doors where you think there are. That is, a process of actually fundamentally questioning knowledge, what we believe and the very process, the *how* of our interactions. Not people who simply try to summarise with talking points.

These people are the very problem Wittgenstein is talking about as they will then go on to philosophise about these terms and statements, continuing on the very same problem.

That's just MY interpretation though, I'm sure there are other Wittgenstein readers who may disagree.

They're starting with the Greeks.

Interesting also how important of it is it to have a firm graps of people like Frege and Russel before going into Witty?

if you are reading the Tractatus, it is pretty important, since he's basically reacting to those too
I don't think it's that important for his later stuff

Yes, this poster is correct, it is vital for his early stuff but you can begin his later stuff without it.

That being said, his later stuff is an attack on early analytic thinking so what he is attacking may go over your head if you don't understand the history. It may seem obvious when reading Philosophical Investigations to have a knee-jerk reaction of "Well, that's silly, he's questioning things we know!" but it's not that simple when you take into account the history of the philosophy of knowledge and that of logic/language in the early 20th century.

not at all, don't be a completionist about that, bettr to read the tractatus with a guide than to try to reverse engineer logic in order to wind up at the tractatus. read later wittgenstein first, then early wittgenstein.

frege scholarship is incredibly complex and russell is a fuck. bypass both, come back to frege later if you have some specific reason for doing so.

>frege scholarship is incredibly complex and russell is a fuck.

Thats why I asked desu.

>frege scholarship is incredibly complex
AVOID DUMMETT AT ALL COSTS

>AVOID DUMMETT AT ALL COSTS

Why are you advising that, Frege: Philosophy of Language is a great book, he doesn't have to begin there, it's just a suggestion IF he wants to study frege

By turning Frege's whole project into an attempt at a theory of semantics, he misses the whole point of Frege's philosophy, and takes 800 pages to do it. Frege doesn't have a philosophy of language, much less an epistemology.

Hmmmm, you may be right

I lack the background knowledge to make sense of it.

What relevance does this work and thinker have for God and Christianity?

He uses description through negation to suggest the mystical.