Tractatus vs Philosophical Investigations

literally why wouldn't he be

he was a logical atomist first, then was teaching ordinary language philosophy

he wasn't unique on either account but both are firmly analytic things to do

in the end he really wasnt that different from other analytics even at his philosophical investigations stage, or do you think austin, anscombe, mcdowell, arent analytics, even rorty is such an analytic if you really read him, and he identifies as one

outsiders who think hes magically deep think hes some aberration that doesnt fit with other analytics but they dont have a clue what other analytics really say to see how little he differs from the rest of them

absolutely based

both bad but behaviorism and use theory are actually worse, plus the later witt is responsible for idiots coming up to you yelling ITS ALL LANGUAGE GAMES MAN like they (dis)solved philosophy

Yeah he just spent all that time associating with Frege, Russell, Moore, Malcolm, Ryle, Anscombe, etc entirely by accident

>rorty is such an analytic if you really read him

Explain?

Anybody else here interested in Wittgensteinian political theory?

Attached: autism_stack.jpg (1522x1242, 432K)

as rorty rightfully notes, a ton of analytic philosophy before him was heavily anti-realist (quine, sellars, davidson, goodman, putnam, as well as wittgenstein), just like contemporary continental philosophy is and 19th century american pragmatism was. rorty decided to cook up all these things into one anti-realist manifesto, but the key ingredients in his book (philosophy and the mirror of nature) as he says are quine's critique of analyticity/verification and sellars' critique of the "myth" of the given

in the introduction to that book he also notes how he is coming out from the analytic tradition with analytic style writing a book like the analytic that he is, because thats the tradition he is familiar with, and you can see that if youve read rorty and also the analytics hes getting his ideas from

he got his writing published in analytic journals too, if that means anything

pseud doesn't even have Wittgenstein, Mind and Meaning by Meredith Williams in his stack. Pfft.

Wittgenstein never stroke me as the political type of person.

I've never read him but was alway more under the impression that the analytics were characterized by their area of interest and by their method, and on both count I've never understood Rorty to comply with what the analytics traditionally have attempted to do.

But maybe that's because I only know him because of his latter more politically charged books. I wouldn't really classify him as an analytical philosopher.

did Wittgenstein identify himself as analytics? Wittgenstein didn't have really any training in any school of philosophy, I see him mostly as an original philosopher.

Correct, Wittgensteinian political theory is pretty paradoxically anti-theoretical and apolitical, rooted in down-to-earth forms of direct political (democratic in Pitkin's reading) representation analogous to his concept of fluid forms of life. It's best summed up in his famous statement that he agreed with communism in practice, but not in theory, turning the usual platitude of agreeing with communism in theory, while simultaneously criticizing the practical implementation of it in countries like the Soviet Union. Pretty interesting too that he seriously considered moving to the Soviet Union between WW1 and WW2.

id say the main difference is a matter of which philosophical canon you were trained to engage and do predominantly engage, and whether you endorse the same style

you arent wrong that analytics tend to have an area of interest which is a little different from the continentals, though sometimes both have shared interests. the most meta-level topic in analytic philosophy is the realism vs. anti-realism debate, and a large number of analytics were actually anti-realists. here they have in common with many continentals. rorty is best known for his views in that debate, but the debate definitely has its place in analytic philosophy.

and in a sense yes rorty was trying to move beyond some analytic dogmas and to engage continentals like a good holist, however i think rorty would grant that if you had to put him in one camp or the other, his style and expertise would make him analytic rather than continental.

note im not saying you cant call him a postmodernist. feel free to do that. the surprise that people dont expect is learning that you can be an analytic postmodernist, since its very much thought of as tied to continental philosophy, but that wouldnt be the first time its happened (see for example, analytic marxism, or analytic existentialism).

Wittgenstein was trained as an Analytic, what are you talking about? Russell and Moore were at his thesis defense.

I don't really have problem with the post modern part. But if I'm reading analytic philosophy I'm gonna expect a certain style and a certain area of focus, a certain method. So, basically, writers like Soames, Fraasen, Hintikka, Suppes...

But I mean I get you. Fraasen is an anti realist for instance. But this alleged rapprochement between continentals and analytics makes me uneasy.

when wittgenstein was writing the tractatus he was very influenced by frege and russell, and in a time when that was roughly 2/3 of the total analytic population bar wittgenstein, we have to conclude he was analytic at least then. the vienna circle looked at that work and loved it. now, if wittgenstein was how the logical positivists (definitely analytics) ended up connecting with russell, youd think the middle link in the chain (wittgenstein) would also be analytic.

then he taught ordinary language philosophy at cambridge. the people he influenced directly are certainly analytics, and his british contemporaries who also worked on ordinary language philosophy (ryle, austin, strawson) also are.

you can be original and still be part of a tradition. wittgenstein was very anti-metaphysics (vs the logical atomism of russell and his earlier self), and also anti-sense data (vs. the logical positivists who tended to rely on that at the time), however his colleagues in the uk all became that way (like austin and ryle), and their american counterparts were the same (like quine and sellars). when wittgenstein turned against the previous stage of analytic philosophy, so did many other analytic philosophers at the same time. and thus, to be anti-positivism or anti-metaphysics ironically became THE definitive analytic thing to do, bar some exceptions. and for a while, that was orthodoxy. metaphysics and qualia didnt recover til the 70s and 80s.

should I read witty right after hume or should I go about this philo shit chronologically

You only need frege, Russell and logic book.

i like both traditions personally, but im actually not a fan of anti-realism. some recent continentals (e.g. meillassoux) are starting to swing away from anti-realism toward robust realism though. it goes to show the realism/anti-realism divide transcends the analytic/continental divide.

van fraassen's constructive empiricism is anti-realist in the sense that it denies knowledge of a disputed class of entities (unobservables in his case), but he seems to endorse more of a realist semantics. anti-realists in the sense i mean it tend to be a bit more complicated than that. one place to start if you are interested is dummett's paper "realism" from 1963.

hats off to you for knowing who soames, hintikka, suppes are. yes theyre definitely analytic writers.

Soame's "Philosophical analysis in the twentieth century" is great. Excellent overview of the analytic tradition.

>meillassoux
based

and he covers both eras of wittgenstein too, showing witt is firmly an analytic, contra some people in this thread

Sine we are in the analytic topic, who is the best analytic philosopher to write in the philosophy of mathematics?
Besides Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein

I would guess Kripke.

i dont know how to answer your question, but if you are going to study philosophy of mathematics these days, you should know paul benacerraf and hartry field, even if you dont agree with them. also worth knowing is the quine/putnam indispensability thesis

following up that other user, Putnam and Benacerraf edited a dope Philosophy of Mathematics collection

i am not shitposting, but was Wittgenstein really gay?
I thought he was friends with David Pinsten but Ray Monk said he was in love with him.

i am not shitposting, but was Wittgenstein really gay?
I thought he was friends with David Pinsent but Ray Monk said he was in love with him.

There is no real consensus on it. I personally think that there was so much internalized angst and self-hatred, be it from family suicides or from reading Weininger, that he was pretty much asexual. What was behind that asexuality, either homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, it doesn't really matter, he just really longed for true, non-artificial emotional connections with people.

>when you think words are too deceptive for love

Read late Wittgenstein as part of continental philosophy, then go back and laugh later when you read shitty "ordinary language" philosophers who spend their whole careers trying to be 5% as insightful as Wittgenstein was in PI

he isnt a continental, idiot. derrida and butler clearly thought austin was insightful.

wittgenstein fans who think like you are insufferable and everyone else in philosophy hates you, including actually formidable wittgensteinians

>wittgenstein fans who think like you are insufferable and everyone else in philosophy hates you, including actually formidable wittgensteinians
this

Austin was a mediocrity. The only people impressed by Austin are analytics who think they invented pragmatism in the 1960s, when continental philosophy was nearly a century ahead of them because of the disastrous snobbish dark age of logical positivism. Read Collingwood's autobiography for a sense of what it was like to be at Oxford or Cambridge between the wars. It was a fucking nightmare. Here's Gillian Rose, a generation later:
>Rose attended Ealing grammar school and went on to St Hilda's College, Oxford, where she read PPE.[3] Taught philosophy by Jean Austin, widow of the philosopher J. L. Austin, she later described herself as bristling under the constraints of Oxford-style philosophy. She never forgot Austin remarking in class, "Remember, girls, all the philosophers you will read are much more intelligent than you are."[4] In a late interview, Rose commented of philosophers trained at Oxford, "It teaches them to be clever, destructive, supercilious and ignorant. It doesn’t teach you what’s important. It doesn’t feed the soul."[5]

Why? Because the generation of teachers who were teaching Rose was composed of all the students men Collingwood describes, whose own teachers were supercilious empty-headed retards who didn't read primary sources.

Ordinary language philosophy was a joke. The best "analytics" are people like Sellars, who is more continental - look at how he was reared, the philosophers he read first and foremost, and where he spent his youth. But even Sellars' "school" has been perverted by pathetic pseudo-Hegelians who can't read Hegel any better than they can bastardize pragmatism a century late. At least the Germans' bastardization of American pragmatism was in the '60s and '70s was more timely - they were deliberately importing Americanism as a rebellion against the "German ideology" of historicism and hermeneutics - and competently done, even if it was ugly as fuck. Americans have no excuse: they had James a generation before Husserl wrote, and it took them a century to discover him. In the 1910s/1920s they just buried him under "realism" of the most naive and positivist kind (incidentally the same term Collingwood uses for the Oxford interwar philosophical dilettantes).

All the best postpositivists were either already reared on good continental philosophy, like Sellars, or they were absolute hacks like Rorty, or second-rate, derivative, Anglo-barbarism writing, mere formalizers of old hat ideas like Quine. Derrida "likes Austin" because he dilettantishly skimmed some contemporary Anglo phil of lang while he was pathetically attempting to expatriate because no one liked him in France. Deleuze also mentions Wittgenstein dilettantishly and barely knows who he is. Butler is a pathetic disgusting pseud.

Anglo-analytic "philosophy" is a joke. Everything it does is ugly, derivative, and several generations late. Even when it tries self-consciously to dig itself out of this ugly hole, it just digs deeper.

Good posts, too bad you type in all lowercase like a proto-namefag.

so which philosophers do you approve of?

not mcdowell and brandom (the "pathetic pseudo-hegelians"), not rorty, not derrida, not deleuze, not butler, not quine, not realists, not positivists, not austin and probably not ryle or strawson

sellars, james, wittgenstein then? how about non-anglo/analytic philosophers?

what about rosen? i haven't followed up on him after nihilism yet, been with the germans and a crossroads of various stuff i hope threads together. i suck at focusing much of the time.

Attached: Cco6nWsW8AA-yyE.jpg:large.jpg (1000x1228, 216K)

Why did he like it’s implementation?

Protagoras, Gorgias, and Cratylus.
He said nothing new.

He was very obsessed with the idea of casually going about everyday life, I think he saw something noble and good about the monotony of going about everyday life in the Soviet Union as a worker. During the immigration process he flirted with to move to the Soviet Union, all his friends tried to convince him to flaunt his identity as a famous philosopher in order to make the process go faster and actually work, but he rejected this idea, instead insisting that if he was to move to Russia, it would be to work as a manual laborer rather than as a philosopher at a university in one of the big cities. In a sense, there was nothing about communism or the Soviet Union ideologically that appealed to him specifically, but he saw great promise in the day to day reality it presented to the people of Russia.

ow, fuck

Attached: 1504471993093.jpg (827x1017, 313K)

That is based as fuck

I suppose the famines wouldn't have affected him, anyway. He couldn't possibly have been thinner than he already was.

who knows, given his troubles with mental health, maybe the famines were part of the appeal.

Based.

underrated

who /hot ziggity/ here?

It'll be curtains for you!