Ludwig Wittgenstein

Hot ziggety!

It's just reddit on a smaller scale, like how they are with Nietzsche or any other philosopher for that matter. Watching a video on youtube which commodifies philosophy like the school of life and spits it out like some non-spiritual, self help bullshit while tricking the person being conditioned into a consumer to strive solely for themselves which is pleasure and money. none of these morons actually read Wittgenstein. They only understand him as philosophy = game and then show a smirk founded on nothing, behind an abysmal and disgusting soul of rot and darkness.

Attached: 40-og.jpg (500x500, 25K)

[citation needed]

>spend decades reading, interpreting and abstracting vague philosophical problems
>some homosexual engineer who's never read Aristotle dismantles it in 75 pages
Based af

He wasn't a logical positivist, but he was even more anti-metaphysics than they were. They accepted observational language in terms of sense data. Wittgenstein and his ordinary language pals, and other post-positivists in America, claimed even that was fundamentally theory-laden.

If you're giving a use theory of language I'm not sure you're doing metaphysics any service.

based as fuck

>Wittgenstein thought things like metaphysics were vitally important, but the truths of them were unspeakable.
This isnt true. He has a direct quote where he says something to the effect that metaphysics is important, but he doesnt want to engage in it and sees himself as untangling the ways those metaphysical systems originate through language. The unspeakable isnt "metaphysics" or metaphysics isnt "unspeakable". Its meaningless to Wittgenstein...pseudo propositions in the form of real ones. What's unspeakable is what can only be shown like the logical form of our language.

>he doesn't want to engage in it and sees himself as untangling the ways those metaphysical systems originate through language.
That is definitely true in the later, but I was more so talking about the earlier Wittgenstein (i.e. whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent) because that's where the misconceptions about him being a strict logical positivist seem to originate from. I guess what I was really to trying communicate was that Wittgenstein wasn't a pretentious STEMfag who waltzed into philosophy, said you can't do this or that with a smug grin, and then walked out. His methodology of reducing speech into a more primitive logical form does seem to suggest, as you say, that some utterances are necessarily relegated to being pseudo propositions, however I think the key to seeing the nuance in motivation behind this reductive analysis is (at least in the earlier) in the choice of words he used to describe overcoming them (i.e. using what is now called a "Wittgensteinian ladder"). They are something that still must be recognized and reckoned with in order to come to the conclusion that they are pseudo-propositions. Things such as metaphysics are steps or rings of the ladder that are not really there, yet it really is possible to climb them nonetheless, and this reminds me a lot of his famous quote on religion - "Only love can believe in the resurrection … (and) this can come about only if you no longer rest your weight on the earth, but suspend yourself from heaven, then everything will be different, and it will be no wonder if you do things that you cannot do now. A man who is suspended looks the same as one who is standing, but the interplay of forces is. nevertheless, quite different, so that he can act quite differently than can a standing man. An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker, it almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it."

All philosophical proposition are nonsense, even the ones in the
Tractatus.

Can you even be more based?

Based

Attached: 1555705194784.jpg (607x608, 38K)

Often it's the opposite of STEM people coming in to use Wittgenstein to make quips about metaphysics though, and when those people do that, they rely on the later Wittgenstein. Yes, the early Wittgenstein was a logical atomist like Russell, so he was more or less engaged in metaphysics.

I would imagine most STEM people are scientific realists, which is to do metaphysics from a logical positivist perspective. Even if they are instrumentalists, their semantics is probably a realist one, not a verificationist one.

the book of ray monk is quite good, he was actually the opposition to scientism

He was a christian, how could he be homosexual? I heard that before, but is it true? From where does this info come from?

Philosophical Investigations is a good philosophy work, tho it can offend some evolians and neo-platonists, since it attacks the very basis of their metaphysics. I was an hermeticist and was in love with the aesthetics of alchemy before I read Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Some people don't even want to understand this authors because they fear the loss of a metaphysical certainty.

Both authors deconstructed metaphysics, but they were still preocupied with the fundamental question: why are there beings instead of nothingness?

>why are there beings instead of nothingness?
I'm just not about witt and heidegger. but... is this really the fundamental question about metaphysics? because I think the only really fitting metaphysical philosopher belongs to that is only heidegger (who coined the term). there are philosophers we call "metaphysical" like, heracritus. not sufficient. Aristotle who didn't said about that. Wittgenstein like you said but your sentence don't have enough explanation... and someone like Kripke and david lewis, which is called as analytic metaphysician but doesn't THAT fitting at fundamental question (I think modal logic is good at IF there are beings instead of nothing on there. but still terrible at questioning why, please explain why this is wrong). and Deleuze, maybe, Badiou, ehh. simondon should be fitted as metaphysician but seriously lacks at it, and finally there's really contrasting with the term such as Whitehead. is it really fundamental?

It's a posthumous rumor set forth by William Bartley. His relationship with Pinsent was entirely platonic, or else he wouldn't have referred to him as a brother and his only best friend. Even if he's had homosexual inclinations, he wouldn't exactly be wearing a septum piercing and waving rainbow flags on the street if he were alive today.

There is a whole movie about Wittgenstein, that I watched, based on the idea that he was gay.

It's sad :/

> is this really the fundamental question about metaphysics

no

> the only really fitting metaphysical philosopher belongs to that is only heidegger

coined what term? while there is some speculation that the unwritten second and third installments of being and time would address that question, there's no real indications that he ever even sketched out an answer.

i think you are confused about what metaphysics means. metaphysics is not peering into the mystery of the world.

>>why are there beings instead of nothingness?
>I'm just not about witt and heidegger. but... is this really the fundamental question about metaphysics? because I think the only really fitting metaphysical philosopher belongs to that is only heidegger (who coined the term). there are philosophers we call "metaphysical" like, heracritus. not sufficient. Aristotle who didn't said about that. Wittgenstein like you said but your sentence don't have enough explanation...

So let me clarify something, this question was posed by multiple philosophers in one way or another. It's an interrogation about causality, as well as about the origin of the all. It's the philosophical astonishment of there being something, what makes the world reasonable is in itself unreasonable, causality is without cause. So it's not only Heidegger, he was actually heavilly influenced by Schopenhauer's book: The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This fundamental question not only asks about the REASON ("why") of beings, because if you want to talk about beings, you have to have a conception of it first, so to question Being becomes a necessary task. In platonic philosophy, beings a just an emanation of a higher being, of a world of ideas. Actually, all daseins have a pre-established conception of being, of the relationship between beings and being, between essence and emanation, we call it a pre-ontological conception.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_why_there_is_anything_at_all