So now that it is accepted fact across all peoples that Wittgenstein ended Philosophy, where do we go from here?

So now that it is accepted fact across all peoples that Wittgenstein ended Philosophy, where do we go from here?

How should we live now?

Other urls found in this thread:

sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/521/1/13-2-97.TXT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

In constant confusion, chasing language games.

Have you found yourself calm in therapy? Or has it failed you?

Let's have a look at these coloured spots and compare them with our mental image of the colour in question.

I would wish to do such a thing, but first, let us discuss the nature or rather, the shared communal understanding of the following:

Let us, before anything else, try to unravel the difference between pointing at something and using words.

No, what I wish to discuss is the difference between SEEING AS and SEEING THAT.

You will be a kind man and grant me all the rest...

theory and science (all types of science not just MUH STEM)

Oh yes, I am of course completely fine, we shall begin in a moment, if you would just continue this regular ornament for a moment while I gather my thoughts?

Friend, I am on the edge. I will commit suicide within the month!

How can I live knowing that I can no longer add to that which obsesses me?

I will leave now, for I have to sweep the cabin floor with wet tea leaves.

IT FEELS SO GOOD
IN MY SPOT
NIGGA IT FEELS SO GOOD
IN MY SPOT
OH
BRICKSQUAD MONOPOLY
GET YOUR HEAD KNOCKED OFF DISRESPECT THIS FUCKING COMPANY

Take it from the man himself and read the philosopher he admitted he was unable to BTFO: kierkegaard

I intend to read Kierkegaard.

Could you tell me where Wittgenstein stated such a thing, please? I'd like to read his opinion.

Woah, looks like i beat you to the punch buddy

Wittgenstein should have just visited Freud.

No need, any more. I found this:

sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/521/1/13-2-97.TXT

But Wittgenstein didnt think we were constantly confused. And 'chasing language games'? That makes them sound fleeting, when the rules by which we live are the content of life. The facts of how we operate are our life.


I think Wittgenstein said Kirkegaard was 'too deep' for him. Wittgenstein was trained as an engineer, and came from a very technical tradition of philosophy, that sought to solve fundamental problems in the philosophy of mathematics. Wittgenstein was also racially jewish, and he talks a bit about jews being shallow and 'incapable of tragedy' in 'Culture and Values'. So the point is, he didnt seem himself as capable of giving proper discourse to subjects like religion, or God. It wasnt that he didnt appreciate it, but he didnt feel like he could either participate in religious life, nor discuss it philosophically.

He didn't though, he just thinks he did.

Is this a meta post?

Are you saying we can only speak OF the facts, not the facts themselves?!

bump

why?

Wittgenstein was a hack that didn't even properly delve into the history of philosophy. To say that something is a linguistic confusion solves absolutely nothing, and to go as far as trying to set limits on what is meaningful to say is plainly silly.

The mystery of Being precedes language and every cultural product that gives rise to its expression. Analyzing language can be a useful exercise, but it hasn't done anything to "resolve" the classic problems of philosophy. This is because they're not "puzzles" to solve like unravelling a knot, not a set of defined questions - philosophy's job has always been to construct a worldview that is useful to justify human practice and the comprehension of this practice. The notion of truth only has meaning within a specific framework of understanding. The fundamental contradiction between daily human reproduction, and systematic attempts to capture its infinite complexity in ideas, is the real source of philosophical speculation. As our societies keep shifting at an ever increasing rate, the need for a properly systematic justification is always there, but at the same time a growing realization that such a system is practically impossible and a necessary illusion. Welcome to postmodernism.

You're obviously deriving your opinion from the Tractatus. Read his later stuff.

>money Jew
>everyone kisses his ass for it
>doesn't bother to learn fundamentals of the discipline that he allows himself to be acclaimed in
>declares that all rules of it have completely changed as of yesterday
>later admits he was completely full of shit

Clearly a brainlet that didn't get it.

Tony Attwood, an international expert on Asperger's Syndrome, has suggested that is is "highly likely" Wittgenstein lived with the condition.[44]

Wittgenstein had romantic relations with both men and women. He is generally believed to have fallen in love with at least three men: David Hume Pinsent in 1912, Francis Skinner in 1930, and Ben Richards in the late 1940s.


>trusting a deranged homosexual, autistic jew to give you good philosophy

how did you manage to say so much but also so so little?

English major pseud

>Tfw when your just getting into philosophy and you swallowed the "Wittgenstein and the positivists were shit meme", but you don't realize that hermeneutics, postmodernism, and the arts were all profoundly influenced by Wittgenstein.

Stay pleb my friend. Also, try reading shit like Kant, Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Derrida. They all explore very similar themes to Wittgenstein (especially Derrida, who basically elaborated on the work of Heidegger and Wittgenstein).

Also although Wittgenstein is to a large extent an a-historical philosopher, he was well read and extremely interested in the works of St. Augustine, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Dostoevsky.

>the positivists were shit meme
but they were shit, you gotta admit, along with early Witty

He was also deeply influenced by Tolstoy in his early career.

>but it hasn't done anything to "resolve" the classic problems of philosophy. This is because they're not "puzzles" to solve like unravelling a knot

This is exactly what they are. Mental masturbation over historical materialism, subjectivism, or whatever inane "worldview" that postmodernism has cooked up does nothing to solve the mind-body problem or the problem of universals. Philosophy has always been about specific problems and whether you choose to systematize your philosophy or focus on one specific issue the fact remains that it supposed to be in service of solving philosophical problems. "Justifying human practice" is only one of these problems, not the sole purpose.

The positivist weren't shit IMO. You just have to understand that they were largely wrong. That being said that had many interesting insights.

As for the early Wittgenstein, he was nothing like the positivists - he was a mystic who was deeply interested in ethics, aesthetics, and religion.

This is literally ad hominem, though. The fact that he was a degenerate has nothing to do with whether his philosophical writings were correct or not.

I know you're going to call me a goodest goyim/cuck Jew/rabbi but again, that won't make me wrong.

We're never going to break the establishment if this is the best argumentation we can confront each other with.

Buddha ended philosophy in 500 BC

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow

good goy, that's right mentally deformed individuals can contribute just as well to society as mentally healthy people.

>completely wrong
>not shit
what did he mean by this?

i didn't realize we were talking about Kripke

>makes sweeping judgements regarding an entire philosophical movement
>has never read a single positivist work

what did he mean by this?

>actually spends his time reading the retarded and completely incorrect works of autistic failed mathematicians

How would you know this if you've never read them?

Within their framework, thinks worked really well and their reasoning is solid. But the premises are wrong, but they didn't know (or believed) that.

This is not difficult to understand, are you semi-illiterate?

>autists trying to justify their complete incorrectness
>n-nooo, b-but we were wrong in an intelligent way!!

Is the Tractatus actually still worth reading nowadays? Is it important to an understanding of modern philosophy, or is it irrelevant at this point?

bump

If you have to ask whether something like the Tractatus is still worth reading then you probably shouldn't be posting here.

He didn't answer anything and didn't end anything.

haha whoa! got me!! xD looks like I'm not cool enough to be part of your secret smart club!! idiot. you do realize that the tractatus is largely irrelevant in modern philosophy, right? I obviously recognize its influence and historical significance, but was asking if there was any modern sway that it held that I was unaware of.

I don't care about that shit, my post was derived from a marxist analysis. Marxism =/= postmodernism, the point you should be led towards is that the recognition of the material causes of social antagonism and the real world emancipation from opresive economic relations is the real "solution" for philosophy. That is to say, the whole idea that philosophy can be solved bit-by-bit is a bourgeois fantasy, another aspect of overspecialization that obscures the fundamental problem of human practice. Just like economics was separated from social sciences because of its pretense of becoming a "proper" science with predictive models, something only possible if you remove economic theory from the realities of historical and material relations.