Did he actually bring anything new to the table other than platitudes like
>languages are inprecise and only work in context
Whoa, fucking blowing my mind here senpai. Philosophy is solved, everybody go home now
Did he actually bring anything new to the table other than platitudes like
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
plato.stanford.edu
twitter.com
How about you read him and find out you charlatan.
A lot, but what will happen ITT when people far below his intelligence try to dissect him is this: en.m.wikipedia.org
Come on guys. OP's question is legit, usually 1 user out of 10 gives a decent reply, however when it's about Wittgenstein, nobody does. EVER.
>preventive excuses
>go read X pleb
>ure dumb
>analytic retards present their compelling arguments
Stop spamming this meme
>judging philosophers by their writings rather than their looks
Wittgenstein's profundity only makes sense in the context of early analytic philosophy, which you clearly have no knowledge of
If he, and specifically the private language argument is right, all analytic philosophy is wrong.
I'd say that counts as "adding something to the table"
aren't you forgetting someone
what about him?
how would the private language argument make him wrong
his theory of speech acts would be wrong simply by virtue of being a philosophical theory
but the private language argument is a philosophical theory
no it isn't ...
you don't understand Wittgenstein if you don't understand his attitude towards theories in philosophy
Check your logic here mate.
>what did he mean by this
I am currently coining a new term called the "Dunning-Kruger-Effect effect", that describes people mistakenly using the existence of the Dunning-Kruger effect as a substitute for an argument
I have bought most of our loved Witts' works at discount price, but I'm still barely out of the greeks on philosophy.
What should I read before I tackle him?
Outside of your argument about private language. You are saying that the argument about private language isn't a philosophical theory because W was hostile toward theories in philosophy.
you can read him ez, especially PI. Taractus is hard but rz if you just think hard tvh
YOU GOTTA CLIMB THE LADDER BEFORE YOU KICK IT OVER
LET THE FLY OUTTA THE BOTTLE
PHILOSOPHY IS THERAPY FOR PHILOSOPHY
ERGO I'LL LET YOU DRAW THE NECESSARY CONCLUSION FROM THAT.
Not even people who dislike Witty say that the private language argument is itself a theory, even simply for the reason that arguments aren't theories ...
You could hold the view that Witty had theories despite stating explicitly multiple times that they were bullshit and that the whole point of his late work was to offer a different way of thinking, but you'd either have to read him so shallowly as to ignore this contradiction entirely, or give a substantial argument for how it qualifies as a theory. You can't just assume he has a theory because philosophers in general usually do.
OP's question is pretty bullshit though. He clearly hasn't read a fucking word. Read him, then you can ask questions.
I'm reading Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein right now and its really informative. Maybe not the best explanation of his work but you get a good sense of the context of his ideas.
I read Witt and think that pretty much is Witt's most important conclusion. He just makes the conclusion quite rigorously.
>contradiction