/lit/ - Literature

>>17330206
Okay fine. We can't know anything. Now what?

>>17330206

Wittgenstein, while held in high regard, is still considered to be mostly wrong in his views on philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and the nature of philosophy itself.

>>17330206
Midwittgestein

>>17330239
>Philosophers don't like Wittgenstein because he shows that their field is worthless

huh

>>17330220
Now we become the God that we’ve been cucking and killing each other over

>>17330291
Wittgenstein was a philosopher himself

>>17330220
It's not that you can't do anything, it's just that Wittgenstein emphasizes the stupidity of dealing with pointless nonsense, such as attempting to find definitive answers for OP's questions. Wittgenstein was never against "nonsense" as a whole since he was deeply interested in religion and art. but rather he was against pointless nonsense.

>>17330206
>As with all disciplines, it's a tool used to describe and explain the external world clearly and objectively.
Wrong. As with all disciplines, it's a creative tool.

>>17330291

Whether they like him or not is irrelevant. Academics in philosophy consider his views mistaken or deeply mistaken and their arguments/criticisms are convincing to others and myself.

>>17330206
Wittgenstein retards all need to read Wigner's article on the utility of mathematics to natural sciences. there is NO WAY someone who has read this article won't be turned into a hardcore Platonist.

>>17330311
Christ is king

>>17330206
This is partly why he shifted his analysis in PI toward so-called logical behaviorism, looking at how language links with behavior and social interaction. This breaks the loop of trying to understand language solely from within language.

>>17330220
that's not what it's about

>>17330206
>He needs a philosopher to tell him this
Midwit alert

>>17330206
Based

Thank you Ludwig

>>17330401
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

This one?

>>17330396
Could you point me to some criticism of Wittgenstein? I was under the impression he remained mostly unchallenged and almost universally accepted by modern academia

NO TODO LO INCOGNOSCIBLE E INSONDABLE ES APREHENSIBLE, ENTENDIBLE, COMPRENSIBLE, Y COMUNICABLE, EN LENGUA ESPAÑOLA, PERO LO ES TODO LO QUE NO LO ES EN LA INGLESA.

>>17331510
kill yourself

>>17330239
I'm in unironically looking for books and essays expressing this view. Just read Wittgenstein and I think he's right. But I'd like my view to be challenged

>>17330206
>retarded Wittgenstein hasn't read Meleau-Ponty

>>17332519
Read late Wittgenstein. Read the Vienna Circle authors and then their critics like Davidson.

>>17331510
Mátate. Solo escribes basura.

>>17332530
Sorry Quine, not Davidson

>>17332530
Late Wittgenstein is exactly what I've read! The vienna circle has not responded to Late Wittgenstein as far as I'm aware.

Davidson seems interesting, I just read his wikipedia article. I see nothing about criticism of Wittgenstein though, any pointers on where I could find that?

>>17332539
>>17332687
Also accidentally wrote Davidson when I meant Quine!

>>17330206
CTMU
https://cdn.website-editor.net/743d4a58f53348a69dd2535a810a7b68/files/uploaded/CL.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiAfpqJnaCg

TLDR cause im on lit and im gay. 200 IQ guy with no degree has for 30 years developed a "theory of everything" with formal logic and proves the existence of god.

He's solved paradox's already, and has been published. Now being a former fedora hat wearing aethist aware of Godel's incompleteness theorem and the limits of knowledge. This guy is a breath of fresh air. I am kind of annoyed I am only recently finding out about him.

>>17330206
>when language itself is limited
Yeah just magic up this unlimited alternative you just pulled out your anus we can use instead. Fantastic.

Otherwise does it by Christ look like you're saying you're not able to say anything meaningful with language while having no recourse to anything but language.

>write book
>write another book refuting you yourself said
>write last book saying you have some points right then later critique the whole of academic philosophy in that book

>>17332905
OP here, when I came upon his works it actually made me feel as if a weight was lifted off my shoulders. We always go through life with questions such as purpose, meaning, and duty, but in reality these are questions that cannot be answered objectively and definitely. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God and that's exactly why I like what Wittgenstein says. Why do we pressure ourselves with trying to "prove" He exists when we ourselves are limited beings trying to explain the unlimited. Have a good 2021 and God bless

>>17332866
Thanks for this, I wish u the best, God Bless.

>>17331073

Most of the recent, and it has to be recent, secondary texts on Wittgenstein contain the most prominent criticisms. You can also get more subtle and i think better critiques, from any philosophy of language textbook which has a Wittgenstein section.

Ill give one example that really stood out from the TLP but i dont remember the full nuance of it. It was that his ontology, particularly his conception of states of affairs being independent of each other is entirely flawed and it undermines most of the theories within the TLP.

The flaw very foundational because if the states of affairs are not independent of each other then neither are the facts (sets of states of affairs) they represent. If the facts cant be distinguished from each other clearly then the picture theory that the facts and logical form (the allowed possible combinations of facts that make up pictures) undergird falls apart too.

>>17330220
>Now what?
Become a math teacher in a small-time German town and beat the crap out of every boy or girl who doesn't understand basic algebra. When the local starts to hate you, run away and go back to daddy Russell.

>>17332938
>just stop thinking and you will feel better
>philosiphical questions cannot be meaningfully discussed because I said so
Lol.

>>17330748
Cuck

>>17332933
And so many people are still ass-blasted. Truly based, Witty.

>>17333018
>you can't dismiss my nonsense without reading all my nonsensical books and thinking hard about my nonsensical arguments!
Courtier's reply.

>>17333063

>>17333018
Exactly what I didn't say. Thank you.

>>17333208
>We always go through life with questions such as purpose, meaning, and duty, but in reality these are questions that cannot be answered objectively and definitely
We always go through life with questions such as purpose, meaning, and duty, but in reality these are questions that cannot be answered objectively and definitely
>We always go through life with questions such as purpose, meaning, and duty, but in reality these are questions that cannot be answered objectively and definitely
>We always go through life with questions such as purpose, meaning, and duty, but in reality these are questions that cannot be answered objectively and definitely
We always go through life with questions such as purpose, meaning, and duty, but in reality these are questions that cannot be answered objectively and definitely

>>17332866
Sounds like a bunch of baloney

>>17333008
It was a problem due to color. Wittgenstein was aware of the problem and it was part of the reason he abandoned the TLP in his later work.

>>17330206
If you want a decently readable walkthrough of the TLP, read the book "signs of sense," by Eli Friedlander. It's a very captivating book that has an interpretation that feels right.

>>17333008
Pseud detected: Wittgenstein's influence in philosophy nowadays issues from PI, not from TLP.

>>17333011
It's funny cause the parents there refused to give him milk because he didn't teach them math that had to do with money

mysticism > philosophy

>>17332519
Read what Grice says in response to the use theory of language and its failure to split pragmatics from semantics. Read Kripke, he provides a semantics for modality that splits it from the a priori and the analytic, whereas Wittgenstein operates on a flawed conception, particularly when in PI he thinks he can prove that private language and knowledge of sensations and so forth is impossible on a linguistic basis. The idea he gives in PI is that if you can't apply P to x, you can't apply ~P to x either: he uses that to show anything that can't be 'doubted' can't be known either, but that's operating on a terrible pre-Kripkean idea of possibility and necessity which is more linguistic than metaphysical.

>>17335232
Mystic philosophy > false dichotomies

>>17333011