/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18797259]

What does /lit/ think about Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.18797267]

>>18797259
"At that time the orthodoxy best described as linguistic philosophy, inspired by Wittgenstein, was crystallizing and seemed to me totally and utterly misguided. Wittgenstein's basic idea was that there is no general solution to issues other than the custom of the community. Communities are ultimate. He didn't put it this way, but that was what it amounted to. And this doesn't make sense in a world in which communities are not stable and are not clearly isolated from each other. Nevertheless, Wittgenstein managed to sell this idea, and it was enthusiastically adopted as an unquestionable revelation. It is very hard nowadays for people to understand what the atmosphere was like then. This was the Revelation. It wasn't doubted. But it was quite obvious to me it was wrong. It was obvious to me the moment I came across it, although initially, if your entire environment, and all the bright people in it, hold something to be true, you assume you must be wrong, not understanding it properly, and they must be right. And so I explored it further and finally came to the conclusion that I did understand it right, and it was rubbish, which indeed it is."

—Ernest Gellner, Interview with John Davis, 1991

[Anonymous No.18797270]

troubled guy but very interesting thinker

[Anonymous No.18797286]

“Philosophy has never been so rigorous, so productive of clarity, so intellectually illuminating, as since the revolution in method which is associated above all with the name of Wittgenstein.”
—Alasdair Macintyre

[Anonymous No.18797519]

>>18797267
>As the years passed, Gellner’s estimate of it and Wittgenstein’s work got lower and lower. In the eighties the falsity of Wittgenstein’s ideas was, to him, "probably the single most important fact about the intellectual life of mankind" (1984: 263); by the nineties it had grown to "the single most important fact about the human condition" (1996: 670), and Wittgenstein now "condemns and ignores everything that is important in the history of human intellectual life" (1998: 162), recommending "a collective infantile regression for all mankind" (1992: 123).
>A few commentators of Words and Things had already noted how Gellner seemed "like a disappointed man whose fixed idea has suffered a blow" (White 1960: 206); "a harassed man" (Mehta 1983: 39) who came across as "slightly paranoiac" (Quinton 1961: 344). But it is only in his recently published posthumous book, Language and Solitude, that Gellner’s dislike of Wittgenstein and OLP goes beyond mere sensationalism and takes on the contours of a complete Weltanschauung.

What the fuck was his probleM?

[Anonymous No.18797530]

>>18797259
His work is enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.18797559]

>>18797519
A classic case of genius envy.

[Anonymous No.18797726]

>Milk is for the pussy
>If a lion could speak, we would not understand it.
>I don't have a point
truly ahead of his time

[Sneed !jjVySneed6 No.18797751]

He was unironically a genius. Ridiculously intelligent dude with lots of creative ideas and an uncanny capacity of making smart observations about stuff:

>“Tell me," Wittgenstein's asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

Still, I think his philosophy was mostly wrong. And the fact that he burned a bunch of his writings makes it difficult to know how great he really was. Still, probably would make most intellectuals of today look like a bunch brainlets if he had an opportunity to have a 10min talk with any of them.

[Anonymous No.18797766]

>>18797259
Talentless hack

[Anonymous No.18797779]

>>18797259
All jewish idols will be pulled down eventually.

[Anonymous No.18797812]

>>18797751
that is not a sahih hadith

[Anonymous No.18798616]

>Josef Haidbauer was an 11 year-old pupil whose father had died and whose mother worked as a local maid. He was a slow learner, and one day Wittgenstein hit him two or three times on the head, causing him to collapse.

Pretty based if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.18798672]

>>18797267
>And this doesn't make sense in a world in which communities are not stable and are not clearly isolated from each other.
It does make sense and this is entirely the point of this aspect of the later Wittgenstein's views on the use-theory of meaning (setting aside that it doesn't even scratch the surface of what Wittgenstein had to offer). Be wary of quick """refutations""" of difficult thinkers.

[Anonymous No.18798673]

>>18797259
gay

[Anonymous No.18798755]

>>18798672
https://www.google.com/search?q=Robinson+Crusoe+wittgenstein

Bro that is really imporatant problem of interpreter of wittgenstein
Don't dumb it down

[Anonymous No.18798857]

pretty bay zed

[Anonymous No.18798881]

>>18797259
bull-doh-zers