Wittgenstein

Where should I start with this man? What do I need to know beforehand? I really want to learn about whatever it is he said.

Other urls found in this thread:

docdroid.net/fWoqZ0F/wittgenstein-guide.odt.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Start by flirting with him. Perhaps say something in his ear, then kiss him on the lips. Know his cock is huge before giving him a hand. He said you're cute, user.

Simple - read the Tractatus then the Investigations. Might be worth investing in an introduction to or overview of his life and work. Also, familiarize yourself with the work of Frege, Russell and Whitehead beforehand, especially Russell.

If you do this, you'll just be confused and thinking "what?". Don't read Tractatus right away, that's probably the dumbest thing you can do.

And it's important to bear in mind that he completely rejected his earlier philosophy.

10/10 post

Get some history on analytics philosophy.
Learn what Frege was up to... Then Cambridge school and Russell... Read secondary, then get your hands on tractatus.

>you'll just be confused and thinking "what?"

I guess, if you're a moron. In which case, don't bother reading any of it.

Yeah, right. You read the Tractatus without any previous study of Analytic Philosophy and understood it well. You're more intelligent than Frege and Russell, both of which were notoriously confused about the manuscript. Just bugger off.

Reminder

Reverse chronological is the best method. So start with On Certainty, then PI, then Tractatus. The rest you can read later if you must.

I had studied earlier analytic philosophy as well as modern logic, which is why I suggested OP do exactly that in my earlier post.

Here is my guide:

docdroid.net/fWoqZ0F/wittgenstein-guide.odt.html

No, because then you wouldn't understand the development of his thought when you start reading his later work

t. Brainlet

Wouldn't mind doing this - he's quite cute in a creepy murderer kind of way. Would hold hands with.

>too stupid to even write a coherent response

You don't need to read Wittgenstein in a linear manner. That's a meme.

No, you don't *need* to, it's just by far the best way.

Different people have different ways of learning, friend.

Reading PI can give one insights when subsequently reading TLP.

Hey OP, I asked the same question here two weeks ago, followed some recommendations, however it appears that every single page written by this idiot is the same. Just buy the cheapest book, it's probably gonna be enough for you to change your mind.

By the way : most sincere thanks to the user who recommended Raymond Smullyan. Now this is serious business, even if not philosophy.

Not a question of 'different ways of learning', it's about which way makes the most sense. Without doubt PI offers insights into TLP, which is why it's worth reading the earlier work a second time after having read the later work.

Now that's an argument.

Russell also said that Investigation held nothing of value, if you really can't make up your own mind about stuff without reading other people's opinions first then don't read philosophy.

this is the worst advice here

fucking read his books you stiupid oh shit

what the fuck is this poiunt

do you need someone to tell you to read the fucking first book he wrote and then go on with other released material post-humorously

dear god this entire board is head fucked cant read a fuckign book without handholding and fucking bucket full of charts and calibri fonts

fucking kjehfuniasfasoiuån

Read his biography by Monk.

IGNORE ALL THIS SHITTY ADVICE

Pick up PI and the Routledge guide. Also read "Philosophy" in the volume "Philosophical Occasions."