What did he mean by this?

>"It has sometimes been said that the Jews' secretive & cunning nature is a result of their long persecution. That is certainly untrue; on the other hand it is certain that, despite this persecution, they continue to exist only because they have the inclination towards this secretiveness. As we say that such & such an animal has escaped extinction only because it has the possibility or capability of concealing itself. Of course I do not mean that one should commend this ability for such a reason, not by any means." MS 154 25v: 1931

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Fake. Either cite your source or gtfo

I did cite it. It's page 19 of Culture and Value.

literally sneaky rats

This is so badly written, for fucks sake.

It would have been nice to hear some examples of the secretiveness. Is he just talking about the Illuminati, and/or the cabal of zionists?

Fuck off Jew when i was in the ninth grade a Jew stole my gf from me, we all know you form into groups to screw over goyim whenever you can even if its something as simple as stopping them from winning the science fair.

Thank you OP, I didn't know Wittgenstein had written something that actually makes sense. It's good news to me.
What I'm wondering is if "inclination towards this secretiveness" is distinct from "secretive and cunning nature" ; I guess it is, but then I can see no reason for the 'inclination towards secretiveness" itself since it seems to be independent from any actual event or cause or social factor. The comparison with animals definitely does not allow any smart interpretation to the quote. Wittgenstein was definitely an idiot.
By the way, the book on pic contains some relevant thoughts on the issue.

>Wittgenstein was definitely an idiot.
>Recommends Sartre

Is this satire?

Well I like when there's a meaning, when an author actually thinks something. It's probably a matter of personal taste.

Wittgenstein is widely regarded as the most important philosopher of the 20th century by academic authorities on both sides of the Continental-Analytic divide.
Sartre was a Russell Brand tier imbecile whose work was entirely derivative of Heidegger and Husserl.
Yeah let's call it personal taste

Because, if you think about any different cultures/ethnicities, like in a city, where there is china town, little italy, korea ville, ghetto, upper class, jews, mexican town etc.

I mean, its very easy to understand 'shyness', lack of friendliness? Like if the jews just stuck together, like the mexicans might be in a particular area, and they keep to themselves, like I just want to know the degrees of these secrets hes talking about.

"Hey, Schlomo, what are you guys planning over there, what are you talking about in your temple? Can we come in and have a poke around, have a listen? What is up with these financial groups you guys make... you guys seem to value money for some reason... hmm, I am beginning to get suspicious.. tell us about your financial investments? I have heard your religious text has secret codes, whats with all the secrets?"

Is it just being said, naturally unfriendly, naturally cold?

>Sartre was a
>was entirely derivative
Did you read Being and Nothingness?

Yes or no?

>but the title is so similar to Heidegger! He must be entirely derivative, I dont have to read all that to know that!

You are such a banal retard. I've yet to see a redeemable post by you

What the person you replied to is getting at I think, is that Sartre wrote more about political and social issues, while Witt was more far removed from the real meat and potatoes of the daily struggles of the masses life, and wrote about 'rulers/measuring sticks and games' , not so much about all that can be measured and played with them

Its time to play Americas #1 favorite game show!

*crowd chants* Not! An! Argument!

Lurk more fag. Point something out I said that was not perfect, your royal voidness

The most successful thing you have and will ever do in your life, is speak to me

I'm rather a Heideggertard, but the more I read Sartre the more I admire him. When it comes to "academic authorities", well your fantasies are also a matter of taste.

>Point something out I said
Ok, I thought of a better thing to ask you.
What is not banal? (ideally I would like 3 things, 2 would then be ok, but I truly hope you can muster at least 1)

Are you a gook? That would explain this level of autistic insecurity

You 'attack' (my character), I defend.
I ""attack"", by allowing you to prove the justification of your attack:

>Point something out I said
Ok, I thought of a better thing to ask you.
What is not banal? (ideally I would like 3 things, 2 would then be ok, but I truly hope you can muster at least 1)

You...cannot do so?
???
Profit? I win?

holy... i want more...

=
You are such a banal retard.

Why, what is the first thing wrong with that post you responded to? Look at the OP, look at the topic, look at the discussion, look at my post, what did I say wrong? The line of wondering, is (at least for me) in what way are jews secretive, what did he mean by this? I tried to offer some ways I thought it could be meant:
What are wrong with those ways?

ps give me your email address I will send you an autograph, for your grandchildren

lol

>Of course I do not mean that one should commend this ability for such a reason, not by any means

Wait, what does this mean?

Taken literally, he is saying that the Jews shouldn't be commended (praised) for this ability but in what sense does he mean it?

Is he criticising Jews?

No it's Sartre.

But the species only has the ability to conceal itself because of its long persecution. Super poor analogy.

Not really, if he meant it like, moths and camouflage

Wrong.

unironically how blue-pilled do you have to be to mistake jews for whites.

theyre not white
not white
not white

whether or not you're a "racial realist" or whatever, you're deluded if you can't "other" them as an intellectual exercise.

>unironically how blue-pilled do you have to be to mistake jews for whites.

Nice strawman, brainlet. Who are you quoting?

what do you think
>an animal has escaped extinction only because it has the possibility or capability of concealing itself
implies?

Do yourself a favor and stop calling people out when you can't read.

Where does Wittgenstein or anyone else in this thread compare Jews to Whites, brainlet?

Underrated post, I chuckled

what do you think jews camouflage themselves as? trees? birds? skyscrapers? The obvious implication is that someone is being deceived by their good goy act. e.g. everyone who watched jon 'stewart'.

Heidegger famously read the book and threw it across the room calling it drivel.

He doesn't mention camouflage at any point.

Wittgenstein is stating that the Jew's secretive nature is not a result of long persecution but rather, they are secretive precisely because only the secretive ones survive.

Although, you may be correct as Wittgenstein did lie to his friends for some period of time claiming to only be 1/4 Jewish than what he actually was.

>Heidegger famously read the book and threw it across the room calling it drivel.

Oh...ok...guess that settles that.
Schopenhaur hated Hegel
Nietszhe hated on Plato
I just threw my copy of Mein Kampf on the floo
Donald Trump said mean things about Hillary Clinton
Did you hear what BurgerKing said about Mcdonalds?

>precisely because only the secretive ones survive.
Hes not saying that either. He is wondering if and why they are secretive, considering he does not think it is because their long persecution, he does not answer, what reasons there are for being secretive, why they are, why they are perceived as, if they are correctly perceived as, if they are secretive. In what circumstances to what degrees they are secretive.

People call the jews secretive.
People offer the excuse of persecution as the reason for this.
I do not think that is entirely the reason for this.

That seems to be as far as is gotten, at least in relation to the OP quote, and my relative ignorance

>Heidegger famously read the book and threw it across the room calling it drivel
The person I responded to, and why I responded, said the book was derivative of Heidegger... if such was truly the case, Heidegger would be calling his own philosophy drivel, according to your statement

kek

The guy you responded to is a moron for relying on anecdotes to make points about philosophy, but I'm gonna correct you because you think you were being clever. No, just because sartre is derivative of heidegger doesn't mean heidegger would be calling his own philosophy drivel. Entirely derivative doesn't mean the same as. Seasons 9 and onward 9f the simpsons are entirely derived from seasons 2-8. Fuck you for thinking that bullshit would fly

(((Wittgenstein)))

Ok, I will concede that point, if you consider conceding that appealing to an authority throwing a philosophers book on the floor does not a btfo of that philosophy make

Perhaps the whites bonded with the jews as they were relatively most similar, compared to all the other colors out there? perhaps the jews are the missing link of white people? Perhaps jews are like 'the grey' in the middle of all the other races, thus their if anything seemingly self entitled role as mediators?

It's a random note from a manuscript, so yeah. He just jotted it down and didn't really return to it.

I take it everything you've ever written is art?

looooooooooooooooooooooooool

Did you read Heidegger? Sarte's the worst kind of example of a "Heideggerian" -- the kind who got nothing out of him and continue to spout Cartesian drivel!

but you're just trolling. Nobody is actually that stupid (except Sarte, I suppose).

>being cucked by a Jew

I would consider turning my knife upon myself.

>spout Cartesian drivel!
I dont know how much sarte claimed or cared to be a 'heideggerian' sartre was his own beast, and seemed to care a lot about practical social, economic conditions, not so much; there arent really any problems lmao just inna woods mann

I am interested by what you mean by Cartesian drivel? I presume, mind body dualism, whereas heidegger was not concerned with such trivialities, but only being present, inna woods, or the town square, chopping wood, fetching a pail of water, build your log cabin, have some tea by the fire.. what the fuck are you all philosophizing with... just be yourself in time lmao... stop making things so complicated (lmao), there is only time, and being... its so simple (lmao), just... be.... in time... what else is even possible? Stop being silly

Hmmm... well.. there is also nothingness!!

*Throws book on floor* goes to well

I can see the heidegeerianness I suppose, with the desire for 'authentic being', ala sartres famous waiter example.

But I admitedly tried to read Being and Nothingness maybe 2 or 3 years ago now, and only made it like 100 pages in, it was some of the most confusing stuff ive read... considering 2 or so years prior to that, I tried to read Being and Time and maybe got 30 pages before realizing he was a total fraud

Ok... but did you read Being and Nothingness, yes or no?

Also, dont be turned off so instantly and fully by some of my humor and ignorance: if you answer some of my questions honestly, I think we can make some nice progress, in showing each other and ourselves, what we know and do not know, and what we think we know, and what of what we think we know may be incorrect.

>The kind who got nothing out of him

So here is a most important question I need answered

>youre a complete idiot, no reason to talk to you or answer this question

Do it for them... do it for the watchers of this realm.

What is one (ideally 3) main distilled points one is suppose to get from Heidegger.

And furthermore, how was Sartre wrong, what was Sartre wrong about? Please dont presume due to my playful socratic approach, that I do not possibly comprehend the potentials of Truth better than you

>that I do not possibly comprehend the potentials of Truth better than you

>I was going to answer with great descriptive fervor but now because you hurt my feelings I am not! bad day to you bad sir! hmmph!

>Please dont presume due to my playful socratic approach,

By this I mean, I do not put all my cards on the table at the beginning, or even middle of a conversation, I throw some seeds out there, some questions, often a fellow interlocutor can not grasp this possibility, and merely takes my simple early questions as meaningless and pointless, and as a sign of the unworthiness of furthering discussion with me, only proving their incompetence and tom follery.

>Nobody is actually that stupid (except Sarte, I suppose).

Your faggy emotions are showing. This is philosophy, check your feelings at the door.

>now Im doubly not gonna answer you! youre loss, I could have been the best you ever had
>*whips hair, shakes hips exaggeratedly walking into the sunsetty wind*

Witt is wrong here.
Their persecution IS a cause for it, or there would not have been a selection for it. A tiger has escaped extinction because of its stripes, but it also has stripes because the savannah grass environment selected for it. Both are true.

Russell was right, Wittgenstein lost his sharp intellect because of disuse after Tractatus.

The Philosophical Investigations is one of the greatest books ever written, perhaps THE greatest philosophical work in the 20th century.

What the fuck are you talking about, pleb?

Also, Russell was a complete tool that was too much of a brainlet to get Wittgenstein's work and here is the full quote:

>The later Wittgenstein, on the contrary, seems to have grown tired of serious thinking and to have invented a doctrine which would make such an activity unnecessary. I do not for one moment believe that the doctrine which has these lazy consequences is true. I realize, however, that I have an overpoweringly strong bias against it, for, if it is true, philosophy is, at best, a slight help to lexicographers, and at worst, an idle tea-table amusement.

Bertrand Russell, My Philosophical Development (1959)


That being said, I agree with you that this quote in the OP is fucking strange.

I didn't care much for philosophical investigations. I preferred his Tractatus, as Russell did. Witt makes too many leaps and assumptions in PI (Or maybe I was just too dumb to understand, hey, I'm not so conceited that I rule that out).

>People with sub 150 iq discussing when did someone far intelligent than them "lost it"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

This is indeed what happens when Russell discusses Wittgenstein.
Or if Wittgenstein could have discussed us.

>People with sub 150 iq discussing when did someone far intelligent than them "lost it"
What did they mean by this?