This guy here is so incredibly right that when I understood what he was trying to say I almost started to cry

based on this
>The Tractatus is a bag of shit. Later Wittgenstein is raping early Wittgenstein in Hell right now.

Fucking kek. I know you have no understanding of Wittgenstein whatsoever. You are an absolute pseud whose mother needs to be shat on to cum.

You're actually the only one in this thread that seems to get it so far.

Insulting my whore of a mother means nothing to me. I would see her beheaded before I would share my correct interpretations of Wittgenstein's Nachlass with a plebeian bitch like you.

That's the greatest compliment I've ever had on the internet. Nice dubs, btw

W didn't talk about the meaning of Being. Ever. If by that you mean he did not believe that language describes platonic essences that people can intuit, then I guess.

It's Heidegger who talks being my dude

What I meant is that existence is limited by one's language, and searching for a cause of that existence is to look for something outside that language, therefore impossible

No you're a fucking retard please die.

The world is all that is the case.

Why Being, though? Why have you not said Ethics, which is a term he mentioned many times? Just admit it, you're a living meme who gets off by pretending to know philosophers on the internet.
Just keep in mind this: whoever actually holds that knowledge can spot posers like you immediatly. You're not fooling anyone.

He would even say words like "cause" and "existence" only function within certain very specific contexts of meaning. A word is what it does. Philosophical words (especially metaphysical ones) however don't really "do" anything. Philosophy is a story of people taking a word like "love" or "is" or "soul" or "God" out of its actual use in people's lives and trying to get at what it "really" means, what it really refers or points to. But language isn't that sort of thing you can do that with. Philosophy as a whole is predicated however on just this misunderstanding.

Interesting perspective BRO. Rather ENLIGHTENING. Do you like HP Lovecraft by chance?

Chill out m8, I don't want to fool anybody. If I said something wrong (and I still can't see my mistake) is because I got it wrong. Now, instead of playing the learned man who busts pseuds, could you elaborate?

nice trips btw

>you cant do that with language because i said so REEE I HAVE AUTISM

Yeah someone on here is a bit of a grump tonight.

I think the point is: how can you look for something outside language if language is all you have

>language is all one has
This is what 'spergers actually believe.

It's not what I believe necessarily but it is more or less Ws arg in the PI. He thinks philosophers have tacitly and explicitly looked at language in terms of "reference". The word "apple" refers to apples, the word "God" refers to god--the word (insert any word) refers to (insert any "thing" which is metaphysically real). He doesn't think language works like that. It doesn't point to thinks in themselves and express their inner essence or something. Instead, language is a kind of game with a bunch of rules we can't really talk about but nevetheless know that we all play, and there are different sub-games within the big game. Philosophy happens when people take pieces of language out of the games where they were at home and put these pieces in contexts where they are not at home, and then try to find the true meaning of these pieces of language. But just as a queen peice in chess doesn't "means" something "in itself" without the whole context of the game of chess, with all the tacit and explicit rules that go along with it, neither does any other word mean something in itself outside its home context. The meaning of a word is it's use in the language game in which it is at home. This signals a death knell to most of philosophy (if he is right). Because most of philosophy is trying to find the ultimately real things words refer to.

Let me guess, you don't like empirism

Well said, user

Of course a 'sperger would reduce language to a game. Were the twat born last decade he'd be talking about D&D and Minecraft and Ultima Online (because WoW is for normies REEEEEEE)
I'm an empiricist.

>I'm an empiricist.
Very good, I am an empiricist too. Just like in empirism we can't affirm the existence of something we can't perceive, in the same way we can't suppose nor analyze the existence of something we can't express by language

Haha you have literally no idea what you're talking about :). But yes he was pretty spergy

I disagree
You're wrong

i honestly don't understand the circlejerking around wittgenstein when one can easily analyze the pre-socratics and the oral tradition in order to ascertain the insight that wittgenstein gathered from his concept of 'language games', and apparently also not misstep into the baffling conclusion that philosophy is somehow dead. this is a conclusion that's entirely divorced from a canon of work that is uninterested in that canon; no doubt because wittgenstein had no interest in continental philosophy. even his mentor, russell, showed how embarrassingly little he knew when he ventured outside of analytics.

but with how many disgruntled STEM grads there are on Veeky Forums, he's probably as suitable a hero as jordan peterson for them.

>I'm an empiricist
>I'm a fucking retard who wouldn't have believed in infrared light if I had been born 400 years ago
>I'm very intelligent ;-)

>philosophy is somehow dead
Philosophy is not dead. Existentialism is

Infrared light doesn't exist.
Intelligence doesn't exist.
Empiricism is for cool cats that don't let mind memes control their lives.

He didn't "reduce language to a game". Games were just one of the best analogies he could find to make his point. Language is "like" a game in a lot of ways. At least how W looked at language. It has nothing to do with Warcraft. Games weren't some trendy topic or something. They have been around for as long as human beings have, just like language.

>I'm a fucking retard who wouldn't have believed in infrared light if I had been born 400 years ago
That's not how it works, dude. We now have proof that infrared light exist, so, in a way, we can percieve it using machines

>Words don't refer to things-in-themselves.
>Words are just words lmao
>meaning is arbitrary lmao
>Arbitrariness is itself arbitrary
WOAH its a roller coaster of false premises made by someone who never STARTED WITH THE GREEKS

You're evading the point.

Philosophy after Socrates is literally variations on the "what is X?" question, which is to say, "to what does C refer?", for over two millennia. A dude who presents two seperate probing critiques of the fundamental modes of philosophy is no derp, lol.

What point was that exactly? That W was a "lulz autist sperglord hahaha praise kek he says language doesn't refer but I say it does haha what a cuck"? Was that your point, mostly?

>needing a 'point'

but this is wrong. the existentialists were doing fundamental work much in the same aim as wittgenstein. if we can lump heidegger in with the existentialists, both him and wittgenstein were dealing with ontology. both even have similar writings on the concept of the 'world' and the inability to grapple with it (pre-ontological). however, heidegger at least has his concept of deconstruktion which derrida would later develop as deconstruction, which is the revelation that context is supreme, which is far more useful than witt's concept of language games.

but that's not what philosophy is after socrates. why are you so lazy? go actually start with the greeks.

Yes. I completely agree. Philosophy after Socrates is only and merely about ontological questions! Finally, someone that as bright as the Angels that watch over us confirmed the forgotten truth!

i meant destruktion; totally combined the two terms there.

Cool sound byte of three of the most important and difficult philosophers of the last hundred years! You're right, most of philosophy hasn't been based on misunderstandings of language and metaphysical presuppositions according to Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Derrida! You're right that these thinkers (at least the latter two) don't put a great deal of emphasis on Plato as the progenitor of this metaphysical hankering after essences! You're also right that Wittgenstein talked LOADS about ONTOLOGY! It's like every second word he writes!

>I cannot think beyond the everyday use of language that we developed through time
What problem do you have with the attempt to explicate a notion regardless of its everyday use? Why should we not be allowed to think beyond the use of language that is given to us (by learning it)? Your entire argument boils down to "because I said so". It is pathetic and insulting to philosophy; let us even assume that the only possible way to reach certainly valid conclusions is by respecting the language game - the question still remains: Why should I limit myself to that line of thought and nothing else? I am not looking after definitive proofs; for instance, when I read Hegel's aesthetics my judgement of his work is based on the criterion of how convincing his argumentation is regardless of the so called "rules of language" that you keep bragging about. Perhaps the Geist doesn't exist and the word refers to nothing - I do not care. Hegel's philosophy (in this context aesthetics) is something I find not only amazing but also true. I cannot, I just cannot understand why you are obsessed with the devalorization of all philosophy that doesn't fulfill your own criteria.

Dude the thread was about Wittgenstein and someone challenged the posters to try and give a moderately cogent account of his later philosophy. That's all I've been doing. I'm not a Wittgensteinian. I don't inflexibly tout the infallibility of his disjointed (albeit insightful) philosophy, and reduce all works of philosophy and all other philosophers to dupes who couldn't see that they were trapped in "the language game" (tm). I was just tying to explain what I take later W basically to be doing.

somehow you ended up writing just about as much as i did without saying anything of value at all.

Better to say literally nothing about great thinkers than to get them so egregiously wrong.

What W said is that since a word is created to express the meaning of a determinate concept, putting a word outside its concept and looking for other "real" meanings is kinda wrong. This has nothing to do with appreciation of other philosophers. Hegel said "What is rational is real; And what is real is rational", and this isn't very far from Witty's thought imo

Wrong? Calm down on the use of overly platonic language, W.

You are so fucking worthless it hurts. Your brain must be made out of corn-specked shit to type up something that fucking wrong. Someone is going to seriously fuck up your front teeth one day for talking this much shit and turn that already fugly bag of bones into an archeological dig, ya feel me?

The world is all that is the case. You failing to understand the fundamental axiom of Wittgenstein is so fucking pathetic your father's sphincter just let go on another Ladyboy hooker's face before (s)he could felch his wife's bull's anal offering for subsequently oral regurgitation because he accidentally was reminded of his contribution to the species by the contorted face of your mother just after orgasm.

>I'm not a Wittgensteinian
It doesn't matter. For the sake of discussion I would love to see how you (or anyone else participating in this thread) could (attempt to) refute the point I made in my previous post.

>he finds heidegger, witt and derrida difficult

honestly embarrassing. explore my so called "sound bytes", you might learn a thing or two.

Haha dude I defy you to find a single use of the word "ontology" in Wittgenstein's corpus.

I'm not even the guy you quoted.

I'm this guy:
p.s. nice paranoia

You didn't answer my question. Why is it wrong to search for a true meaning of a word? Why am I not allowed to explicate a notion? The point of the example I've made with Hegel was to illustrate how argumentation can be convincing regardless of the framework that you accept, the framework being the language game where "looking after the true meaning of a word is wrong". Once again, why is it wrong?

this post is the most embarrassing thing i've ever read on this website

>Haha dude I defy you to find a single use of the word "ontology" in Wittgenstein's corpus.

future warning to all inevitably disgruntled STEM fags reading this thread: start with the greeks. you might learn a thing or two before succumbing to brain rot like this dude here, thinking wittgenstein wasn't pursuing the nature of being even with his first writing, the tractatus. that seventh proposition must be such a doozy for you friend.

Haha it must be difficult to be so overmatched in the only place where you feel your "superiority" to the "plebs" might actually be appreciated.

"Not only do the other JERKS at school and work not like me, but now I cannot even pretend to be a socially awkward genius who understands philosophy and the true nature of things, because it turns out I'm not even very well read, nor am I very intelligent at all! Darn you, you...you...son of a cuck!"

Nice work quoting from early Wittgenstein though. Really showing your stripes there, given this whole conversation has been about the work he wrote after he more or less repudiated that stuff!

Haha not paranoia! Look at the chain of responses. I though you were the same dude responding to me response!

You know more about the secret undercurrent of his thought than most scholars then, because I've never heard anyone talk about W as an oncologist. The closest maybe being the fact that when he read Heidegger he is purported to have said "yes, I think I understand what he is getting at."

News flash! He never repudiated that you shitguzzling mongoloid. You're an illiterate psued who projects his sad little life into others like a matinee. Shut the fuck up already, brainlet.

Ontologist*

Because the "true" meaning of a word is not something beyond its common use, but the common use itself (at least according to W, and, at this very moment, I agree). Searching for the "true" meaning is putting that word in a whole different game. So, to use your example, Hegel was playing his own game. Ya like Hegel? Good. I don't really know him a lot, but I like some of his thoughts. Every philosopher has his little own game, which is different from THE language game

This is basically right.

Well he never stuck by the system he built in the TLP and never reused any of its propositions and even has a section in the PI where he levels pretty devastating critiques against it. He's literally famous for being a philosopher who, according to scholarly consensus, developed two independent "philosophies."

>because the "true: meaning of a word is its common use
We're walking in circles. From my point of view by saying this you are simply enforcing an arbitrary rule upon me which I am not obliged to accept. I do not see a single reason to limit the meaning of a word to its everyday use - in a philosophical context the meaning of "beauty" can (and usually is) very different than its everyday meaning and that does by no means prevent me from understanding and accepting or denying a theory.

but this denies historicity. this denies the fact that philosophy is fundamentally about reviving context and challenging context. you presuppose THE language game like it's some platonic form existing outside of ourselves, but it's not. there is nothing profound in this relativism.

>in a philosophical context the meaning of "beauty" can (and usually is) very different than its everyday meaning
That's in fact the point. Well, I guess you just see it in a different way.

That's fine for you and I personally am inclined to agree with you. I'm sort of a platonist on my more hopeful days. But I think W would say that there isn't an "argument" you can make to "prove" this isn't the case about language. Rather, the PI is him trying to show you, the reader, why language doesn't work the way philosophers generally think it does. Me saying "oh language is like a game and words don't refer" isn't an argument, just a claim and an appeal to authority, really. This is why people talk about the PI as a kind of philosophical therapy. As you read through it it helps you untahlenthe webs of metaphysical thinking by which you're ensnared. It's it a book of arguments, but poetic interpretations of traditional philosophical problems that sort of dissolve the problems instead of meeting them in their own terms and trying to solve them.

Hurr durr read those sections again, shitforbrains. He's critiquing his theory of the proposition, you blithering idiot. You won't find one scholar that considers PI and TLP "independent", you tail-chasing labrat. Bad dog! Bad dog!

I wouldn't say I presuppose the language game as something existing outside of ourselves. I'd rather say that I see philosophy and common use as two different contexts which have little or no common point, and since it's absurd to say philosophy was born before language, I think philosophy takes words from their common use and puts them in other games

You're not Kent. And stop mixing metaphors.

Fuck off, Joel. You aren't my father and you aren't about to tell me what I can and can't do. What if I like fucking my sister and her rabbit? How does it affect you?

Kent from Lear

Leer? Isn't that a video game?

Kek pleb

Ernest Gellner nailed Wittgenstein and the kinds of people who like him (especially the W fanboys that post here). They are pseudo-pensive soyboys that spend their entire lives around language. Reading as much as possible, writing as much as possible. So they suddenly have the profound thought that the key to all philosophy and life is language. You couldn't get a more insular, inward-looking case of déformation professionnelle.

Same problem plagues the continentals. Non-STEM academia should really be burned to the ground, similar to the way the French revolutionaries burned seminaries to the ground.

As if you understood anything about his philosophy of mathematics

No point reading any other philosophers, honestly.

Where are these fanboys? Aside from OP it's been a discussion about the work of a dude universally acknowledged as one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. Everyone here takes talking about a figure as a whole hearted endorsement of that figure. Whether he was right or wrong, what's wrong with trying to describe and discuss his ideas?

"Hur dur my obscure pet sociologist is clearly superior as he wrote about nations and nationalism instead of the fundental nature of philosophy, like that herp Wittgenstein."

Sweet bro!

This is the kind of autism he fear, and so, he wrote too little - because of his influence.

thsis only makes sense when applied to philosophical questions like

what is soul?
what is mind?
what is x?

These are in fact very important philosophical questions. Because of whay you said it's pointless to say that all philosophy was triggered by Wittgenstein. He only triggered a part of it, and he definitely said that there's no meaning to existence

banter game on Veeky Forums had improved recently, i see

>2017
>has nothing to do with warcraft
>being this much of a pseud