[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/lit/ - Literature

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:04 UTC+1 No.5192895 Report

What do you think about this guy?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:05 UTC+1 No.5192904 Report

I'm not sure if he's a duck or a rabbit, if you take my meaning.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:06 UTC+1 No.5192907 Report

Why do some people say he is the smartest person to have lived? What has he done exactly that is admirable?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:07 UTC+1 No.5192909 Report

>>5192904
If he walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck
he might actually be a rabbit with duck genes spliced into him by Monsanto
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:08 UTC+1 No.5192911 Report

>>5192895
genius of genius

him and aristotle are the only philosophers worth reading
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:08 UTC+1 No.5192912 Report

>>5192907
He basically ended WWII single-handedly.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:08 UTC+1 No.5192913 Report

>>5192907
He made philosophy even more ridiculous, which when you consider the time when he lived, is a serious accomplishment and requires a great deal of mental fortitude.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:09 UTC+1 No.5192917 Report

He talked about mathematics without understanding it and encouraged hundreds of lib art students to do the same

Two thumbs down, wouldn't idolise.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:10 UTC+1 No.5192922 Report

>>5192912
...
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:10 UTC+1 No.5192926 Report

>>5192917
He created gimp and paint through his picture theory of language
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:11 UTC+1 No.5192930 Report

>>5192922
does silence imply consent? wittgenstein was never clear on that
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:13 UTC+1 No.5192938 Report

>>5192912
why? how?

can you be a little more precise please?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:16 UTC+1 No.5192955 Report

>>5192895

an absolute genius

its really too bad people are still pretending he didnt destroy metaphysics irrevocably

he did it. he won. but it doesnt matter because you dont have to read what he said, you can live your life in a neoplatonist fantasy land and there's nothing any of us can do to stop you
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:17 UTC+1 No.5192959 Report

>>5192907

He is famous more for his reputation as a teacher and thinker than his philosophical publications. He was highly regarded by many of the influential thinkers of the early 20th century.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:17 UTC+1 No.5192964 Report

>>5192938
Because. That's how.

No.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:17 UTC+1 No.5192965 Report

>>5192938
one cannot underestimate the power of intelligence and cryptography in war
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:18 UTC+1 No.5192971 Report

>>5192965
so what did he do?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:19 UTC+1 No.5192975 Report

>>5192955
metaphysics destoyer? "thereof we cannot speak" is truer than anything we can speak
>>5192964
>shilling this hard
ISIS plz go
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:20 UTC+1 No.5192980 Report

Another based Catholic.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:20 UTC+1 No.5192982 Report

>>5192907

He had a very confident writing style and refused to answer questions -- one of his conditions for speaking to the Vienna circle was that they would shut up and listen to him and not debate him. This created the illusion that his wisdom was unchallenged.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:20 UTC+1 No.5192984 Report

>>5192971
What he had to.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:21 UTC+1 No.5192989 Report

>>5192982
He basically pushed logic to the limit of imcomprehensibility then read bunch of poetry to the sciencefags that thought logic should be more comprehensible and blah blah blah. I always thought it was a vienna square personally.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:22 UTC+1 No.5192995 Report

>>5192971

He did nothing in cryptography. I think he just volunteered at a hospital. IIRC.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:23 UTC+1 No.5193003 Report

>>5192995
I hear he was in the trenches using his Jew nose to sniff out chemical weapons and mines.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:26 UTC+1 No.5193017 Report

>>5192982

At the time he had little interest in doing philosophy. They begged him to do it.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:26 UTC+1 No.5193022 Report

>>5193003
He wasn't Jewish. His mother wasn't jewish and his father converted to protestantism.

Bu Wittgenstein was a Catholic.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:37 UTC+1 No.5193073 Report

>>5193022
yes, but he's still ethnically Jewish.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:39 UTC+1 No.5193082 Report

>>5193073
If you'll excuse my metaphors and Lacanianism, Jews are like Reptillians, insofar as they use the master signifier to hide inside every discourse.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:40 UTC+1 No.5193087 Report

>>5193073
> mother isn't jewish

I don't know what Talmud you're reading, but he's not Jewish. He wasn't circumcised.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:42 UTC+1 No.5193095 Report

>>5193087
you don't have proof
you don't have a picture of his penis
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:43 UTC+1 No.5193101 Report

>>5193022
>Wittgenstein was a Catholic.

Until he wasn't.

>catholic burial rites

Yeah, yeah. Still.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:44 UTC+1 No.5193104 Report

>>5193095
That guy is actually a time-travelers who sucked Wittgenstein's dick and asked him whether him mom was Jewish. He's legit.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)18:46 UTC+1 No.5193115 Report

>>5193087

He said ETHNICALLY Jewish, dog. Though whatever that's meant to mean when you're talking about mixed heritage, I'm not sure. Point is, strict matrilinearity is a religious concept, not an ethnic one. The Wittgensteins were Jewish enough to have to pay their way out of the Third Reich when ze shit hit zem fan.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:06 UTC+1 No.5193189 Report

>>5193101
He was Catholic, loved the new testament, loved Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, seriously considered becoming a trappist monk, said Anscombe, staunch anti-abortion Catholic, was the person who best understood his philosophy.

He was Catholic.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:18 UTC+1 No.5193245 Report

Best philosopher ever. Simply. If you don't understand it yourself you should consider quitting philosophy.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:21 UTC+1 No.5193264 Report

He sure was one handsome motherfucker.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:22 UTC+1 No.5193266 Report

>>5193115
The dogs of the church are always sniffing out heresy... not realizing it's just pigshit.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:22 UTC+1 No.5193267 Report

>>5193264
rust coal should play him in a biopic
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:28 UTC+1 No.5193289 Report

>>5193267
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcOR6r31X0

Alan Turing. Mathematician. Benedict Cumberbatch. Nazi-Killer. The foundations of mathematics, computational logic, and encryption hasn't been this awesome since Good Will Hunting.

The next mathematician biopic should be on Kurt Gödel, Henri Poincaré, or Georg Cantor, and should star another action-movie start like Gerard Butler, Clive Owen, or Hugh Jackman.

I am also eagerly awaiting the racy biopic on the passionate love and thoughts of Bertrand Russell with cameo appearances by McTaggart, Bradley, Moore, Whitehead, Carnap and Wittgenstein.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:32 UTC+1 No.5193314 Report

>>5193189
>He was Catholic

No.

>loved the new testament

No. He loved Tolstoy's Gospel in Brief.

>seriously considered becoming a trappist monk

He applied to a monastery once and was turned down, so he became a gardener. He just wanted a simple existence at that time.

>a catholic really liked him

Not relevant. His philosophy certainly has sweet fuck-all to do with theism of any stripe. Scraping the barrel here, mate.

Consider:

"I believe that every human being has two parents; *but Catholics believe Jesus only had a human mother*... [C]atholics believe as well that in certain circumstances a wafer completely changes its nature..."

-On Certainty

That seems to sort that out, then. Definitely, 100% unambiguously, not a Catholic.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:35 UTC+1 No.5193321 Report

>>5193314
Earth mother, sky father. It's two parents either/or. Wittgenstein was playing dumb.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:41 UTC+1 No.5193351 Report

>>5193321

It is in ze nature of sings zat are 'parents', zat zey haff ze cock and ze balls or ze pissflappen. Gott hat nicht die cock und balls und nicht die pissflappen, eizer. Gott can zerefore nicht be considered a 'parent' in any sense we may use ze word.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:43 UTC+1 No.5193359 Report

>>5193351
Are you saying that God/The Virgin Mary are both traps and the Bible is some weird transformation fetish hentai? I guess that does fit in with the Zeus skydaddy theme too tho.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:44 UTC+1 No.5193367 Report

>>5193359

Some Jews believe god is male and female because Adam was originally created as with both male and female in him.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:44 UTC+1 No.5193368 Report

>>5193264
he was a creepy manlet
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:45 UTC+1 No.5193370 Report

>>5193367
So Adam has an extra rib that is actually a vagina? Or is this like some sort of king tut's dick joke?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:46 UTC+1 No.5193374 Report

wittgenstein did some prime shitposting in his day

>“Wittgenstein’s correspondence with Pattison consists almost entirely of ‘nonsense’. In nearly every letter he makes some use of the English adjective ‘bloody’, which, for some reason, he found inexhaustibly funny. He would often begin his letters ‘Dear Old Blood’ and end them ‘Yours bloodily’ or ‘Yours in bloodiness’. Pattisson would send him photographs cut out from magazines, which he called his ‘paintings’, and to which Wittgenstein would respond with exaggeratedly solemn appreciation: ‘I would have known it to be a Pattison immediately without the signature. There is that bloodiness in it which has never before been expressed by the brush.’ In reply, Wittgenstein would send ‘portraits’, photogrphs of distinguished looking middle-aged men, ripped out of newspaper advertisements for self-improvement courses. ‘My latest photo’, he announced, enclosing one such picture. ‘The previous one expressed fatherly kindness only; this one expresses triumph’.”

>"Throughout the correspondence there is a gentle ridicule of the language of the advertiser, the absurdity of the style being invoked simply by using it as though it were the normal way for two friends to write to each other. Sending Wittgenstein a (genuine) photograph of himself, Pattisson writes on the back: 'On the other side is pictured one of our 47/6 suits.' 'Somehow or the other, Wittgenstein writes at the end of one letter, 'one instinctively feels that Two Steeples No. 83 Quality Sock is a real man's sock. It's a sock of taste - dressy, fashionable, comfortable.'"
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:47 UTC+1 No.5193376 Report

>>5193370

"Rib" is a poor translation IIRC. I think the word means side. Its anatomically ambiguous.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:48 UTC+1 No.5193383 Report

>>5193374

I never get tired of reading that.

>you will never be one of the three or four people to successfully bro it up with Vicky.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:48 UTC+1 No.5193386 Report

>>5193376
Sounds like Plato.

I always imagined it as a shoulder blade.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:50 UTC+1 No.5193395 Report

>>5193376
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:53 UTC+1 No.5193420 Report

>>5193376

Seems an implausible coincidence that it should have been mistakenly believed for so long that women had one rib more than men.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:05 UTC+1 No.5193491 Report

>>5192895
The only reason /lit/ says they like him is because he took that picture that is pretty cool. Therefore, they think he is the bees knees.
/lit/ is mostly full of gays teens in denial.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:05 UTC+1 No.5193494 Report

>>5193420
Perhaps Eve was given a copy of Adam's geneseed through her extra rib so that she could have it removed if her husband was killed because of her son's Oedipal complex.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:07 UTC+1 No.5193507 Report

>>5193314
He loved catholicism but didn't believe in transubstantiation.

He was a cultural catholic and his philosophy is very much in line with catholic virtue ethics.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:08 UTC+1 No.5193513 Report

>>5193314
He loved the New Testament and the Gospel.

He stated he didn't really give a shit about the Old Testament. It never moved him.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:09 UTC+1 No.5193518 Report

>>5193507
He must not have understand Aristotle if he didn't realize that hylomorphic nature of matter implies transubstationation.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:09 UTC+1 No.5193519 Report

>>5193507

He wasn't a Catholic. Deal with it.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:10 UTC+1 No.5193526 Report

>>5193519
The only true Catholic died 2000 years ago. The rest of his cabal went into hiding so that they could resurrect him through black magic.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:11 UTC+1 No.5193536 Report

>>5193518
>He must not have understand Aristotle
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:13 UTC+1 No.5193550 Report

>>5193267
I thought the same thing.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:13 UTC+1 No.5193552 Report

>>5193536
when i put yeast in water and feed it flour or sugar for it to multiply I feel like God feeding his people mana....feast my little children feast.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:14 UTC+1 No.5193557 Report

>>5193550
You mean Mattieu McDonaldson?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:16 UTC+1 No.5193565 Report

>>5193518

For Aristotle form is never separable from matter. You can't just switch form willy nilly. A man could never suddenly become a dog and a cracker can never become the flesh of a specific 2000 year old jew.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:19 UTC+1 No.5193583 Report

>>5193557
Yeah. When I was watching True Detective I thought this is what Wittgenstein would be like.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:20 UTC+1 No.5193591 Report

>>5193565
And that's because you don't have Aristotle's secret spoken tradition and only have the written tradition. It's like the kabbalah. You can only go so far with just the primary text.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:21 UTC+1 No.5193597 Report

>>5193583
I spent some time in the high-intensity drug trafficing area in Vienna -- eating philosopher's stones while sniffing out crime...
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:26 UTC+1 No.5193622 Report

can someone post that where to start with wittgenstein image
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:28 UTC+1 No.5193638 Report

>>5193591

No, it's because Aristotle explicitly rejects the dualism of Plato in the opening of metaphysics and elsewhere.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:30 UTC+1 No.5193641 Report

>>5193638
False dichotomy. Plato was a nondualist/monist/trinitarian.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:30 UTC+1 No.5193645 Report

>>5193597
Exactly.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:32 UTC+1 No.5193653 Report

>>5193638
Also, you do realize the metaphysics is notes written by his students right?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:32 UTC+1 No.5193654 Report

He keeps me motivated sometimes, that's it.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:32 UTC+1 No.5193658 Report

>>5193641

I don't think a single legitimate interpreter of Platonism would agree,
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:33 UTC+1 No.5193661 Report

>>5193653

They're thought to be note arranged by his students, not written by them.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:38 UTC+1 No.5193687 Report

>>5193658
Except for all the Neoplatonists. And the fact that he was trying to create differance in his writing which most scholars, being moderns, see as repetition. How do you determine legitimacy anyway? Do you possess theoria?
>>5193661
A true philosopher never reveals his secret.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:56 UTC+1 No.5193772 Report

What do you read to understand this douche Wittgenstein?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)20:58 UTC+1 No.5193777 Report

>>5193772
You probably already understand him. It's just the technicalities. Philosophy is best learned in a mentorship program.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:01 UTC+1 No.5193795 Report

>>5193777
All I know is that he was instrumental in the philosophy of language, and that he thought (to make it highly simplistic) that all philosophy was semantics.
Unless that's wrong, in which case, what do I need to read?
As a linguist I feel it'd be pretty interesting.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:05 UTC+1 No.5193808 Report

>>5193795

>Unless that's wrong, in which case, what do I need to read?

you only read philosophers who are "right" ??

how do you know who to read? you can't really know who's right until you know who's wrong and why

either way, wittgenstein WAS right, so read him anyways
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:05 UTC+1 No.5193809 Report

>>5193795
Heidegger and Wittgenstein are usually presented as the key figures in the continental divide but both are united through Kant. Analytic philosophy is computational. Continental philosophy is biological. The cross and the lotus. But like all moebius strips there is neither inside nor outside.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:05 UTC+1 No.5193811 Report

>>5193795
As far as I know, you have the Tractatus, which is basically the opposite of what he ended up asserting in his Philosophical Investigations. PI is where he talks about language. It could be cool for you to read Tractatus first to have some context. He almost uses it as a strawman to attack in PI, where he refers to himself as a dumbfuck in third person.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:06 UTC+1 No.5193813 Report

>>5193808
Bro. I meant "unless my assumptions about his philosophy is wrong". Christ.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:06 UTC+1 No.5193815 Report

>>5193809
continental/analytic divide

Heidegger is seen as the continental forefather
Wittgenstein is seen as the analytic forefather

It's really petty politics that shouldn't be in the university but the lycaeum of the state infects the body of academy
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:06 UTC+1 No.5193816 Report

>>5193687

For Plato The Good was only the origin of Form and not also matter.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:08 UTC+1 No.5193825 Report

>>5193813
When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:10 UTC+1 No.5193832 Report

>>5193816
“To be sure, the philosopher-king must have a proper understanding of it [the Good] before he can take on the task of governing the ideal state. In fact, the knowledge of the Good is the basic qualification for being a philosopher-king, but the existence of such a wise ruler is not an established fact. It is only a dream for the future. Thus, the notion of a philosopher king and that of dialectic as the science of Forms are no more than two nebulous dreams...
There is no longer any glaring difference between the two worlds, because each of them is a world of Forms. One is the world of empirical forms, and the other is the world of transcendent Forms. There is a systematic affinity between the science of dialectic and the art of rhetoric. Each of them investigates a world of Forms with the same method of question and answer. No doubt, these two disciplines will require different methods of investigation, that is, the a priori method of recollection for the study of the transcendent Forms, and the empirical method for the study of the empirical Forms… [I]n the Republic, there is a clear shift of attention toward the empirical method… the same method provides the art of leading a soul (psychagogia) by the power of words (261a)… It is the art of philosophia that the old Socrates uses in talking with young Glaucon and Adeimantus in the Republic. It is the same method of discourse that the philosopher-king will use in persuading the citizens of the Kallipolis, and that will be used in guiding the citizens of Magnesia in the Laws.”
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:12 UTC+1 No.5193835 Report

>>5193825
When you use tired cliches you make an ass out of yourself, and only yourself.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:12 UTC+1 No.5193836 Report

>>5193811

The PI does not repudiate the TLP in any major way. There are some funny asides where Witters chastises himself for lapses in reasoning, but otherwise the basic idea underlying the TLP is still sound.

The TLP is not a description of all language. It is a description of the language of natural science. It is one language game out of a nearly infinite variety of language games humans "play"--it just happens to be a particularly important one. Witters' contemporaries were attempting to make it the only *legitimate* language game, even if they didn't conceive what they were doing as such. It was a meta-critique of logical positivism--unfortunately, no one seemed to pick up on this at the time. Hence the clarifications and expansions in the PI. They are completely congruent works
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:17 UTC+1 No.5193859 Report

>>5193835
You can hear others words but only with your own ears.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:18 UTC+1 No.5193863 Report

>>5193836
This man is a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you for your concise and non-condescending answer.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:19 UTC+1 No.5193865 Report

>>5193832

There is no argument here. It simply assumes that there are empirical forms.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:20 UTC+1 No.5193869 Report

>>5193865
Particulars are empirical forms. Unless you want to say particulars are non-deterministic.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:20 UTC+1 No.5193870 Report

>>5193863

I tip my fedora to you as well, good sir. Upvote.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:21 UTC+1 No.5193873 Report

>>5193836
Hey, thanks for the clarification.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:23 UTC+1 No.5193884 Report

>>5193870
Upboats all around. We'll all get to heaven in a little red boat.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:27 UTC+1 No.5193904 Report

>>5193869

Particulars partake of forms, but are not forms themselves. Form are what allows beings to persist as what they are despite motion and change. Determinism is not related to the problem Plato intended to solve.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:30 UTC+1 No.5193918 Report

>>5193082
Kill yourself.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:31 UTC+1 No.5193925 Report

>>5193918
>implying all trolls aren't already born again Christians
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:32 UTC+1 No.5193926 Report

>>5193836
>They are completely congruent works

While the gulf between them is surely overstated regularly, this is a bridge too far the other way. They outline entirely incompatible theories of both language and meaning.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:34 UTC+1 No.5193935 Report

>>5193926
Well, there are definitely wormholes which connect both fruits of knowledge.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:45 UTC+1 No.5193988 Report

>>5193926

Not if you view the TLP as a description (or, maybe, a demonstration) of a *particular* language game, and the PI as a discription, or "theory," of language generally.

I would encourage you to return to both works, and also to Witters' notes in On Certainty. Altogether they form a fairly comprehensive picture of language, activity, and the status of knowledge.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:52 UTC+1 No.5194015 Report

>>5192982
Actually, no, he used to sit with his back to them and read poetry while they argued with each other over his ideas
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:54 UTC+1 No.5194026 Report

>>5193189
He explicitly said he wasn't a Catholic. he wasn't able to bring himself to believe in the stupid stuff like Transubstantiation. He had an enigmatic view on religion and he knew it was so
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)21:58 UTC+1 No.5194037 Report

>>5193815
hegel is the continental forefather you dipshit
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:12 UTC+1 No.5194077 Report

>>5194037
>Hegel
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:19 UTC+1 No.5194099 Report

>>5193988
>Not if you view the TLP as a description (or, maybe, a demonstration) of a *particular* language game

Sure, but that's a pretty strained perspective. We know from correspondence etc that the picture theory was intended to describe language as a whole, for example.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:21 UTC+1 No.5194104 Report

>>5194015

You're both right, kind of, IIRC. He would agree to see them on condition that they let him read poetry at them (with, as you say, his back turned) for an hour before any discussion.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:34 UTC+1 No.5194157 Report

>>5194099

What? "We know from correspondence etc that the picture theory was intended..." What does that even mean? Yes, the TLP presents a correspondence theory of truth. That's the theory of truth that fits the language game of natural science. It's not the theory of "truth" that fits other language games. Truth values don't even enter into many (maybe most) other language games. There is no suggestion in anything that Wittgenstein actually wrote that the correspondence theory was universal--that's just the standard interpretation of the TLP. But just because it's the standard interpretation doesn't mean it's the most appropriate one. Consider the standard interpretation of the Critique of Pure Reason, which is completely off point. When put in the context of Witters' total work, we get a completely different picture of the status of truth.

Again, I would strongly suggest returning to both works, and take a very close look at On Certainty.

Here's an excerpt:

>95. The propositions describing this world–picture might be partof a kind of mythology. And their role is like that of rules of agame; and the game can be learned purely practically, withoutlearning any explicit rules.
>96. It might be imagined that some propositions, of the form of empirical propositions, were hardened and functioned as

channels for such empirical propositions as were not hardenedbut fluid; and that this relation altered with time, in that fluidpropositions hardened, and hard ones became fluid.
>97. The mythology may change back into a state of flux, the river–bed of thoughts may shift. But I distinguish between themovement of the waters on the river–bed and the shift of the beditself; though there is not a sharp division of the one from the other.
>98. But if someone were to say “So logic too is an empiricalscience” he would be wrong. Yet this is right: the sameproposition may get treated at one time as something to test byexperience, at another as a rule of testing.
>99. And the bank of that river consists partly of hard rock, subjectto no alteration or only to an imperceptible one, partly of sand,which now in one place now in another gets washed away, or deposited.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:37 UTC+1 No.5194171 Report

>>5194099

It might also help you to look up the meaning of "begging the question."
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:52 UTC+1 No.5194230 Report

>>5194157
>What does that even mean?

Given that the sentence is neither complex nor remotely ambiguous, I'm going to assume you know exactly what it means.

>There is no suggestion in anything that Wittgenstein actually wrote that the correspondence theory was universal

Ah yeah. It's not as though, having published TLP, he literally claimed to have 'solved all the problems of philosophy' or anything. Good thing for you, too, 'cause that'd be pretty tough to explain...

>just because it's the standard interpretation doesn't mean it's the most appropriate one.

No. But it does mean you have a whole lot of splainin' to do if you want to be taken seriously. Simply asserting, as you have done, that there exists a set of precepts, viewed from which the two works are perfectly congruent, is either trivial or false, depending on how far you go with it.

>When put in the context of Witters' total work

Well this is the thing. Clearly, that is exactly what you are doing and it will be hard to convince me that it's appropriate to do so.

>>5194171

When in doubt, resort to condescension and sniffily implied accusations of fallacy. That always makes one look so confident and authoritative!
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:57 UTC+1 No.5194244 Report

>>5194157
>>5194099

>105. All testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system. And this system is not a more or less arbitrary and doubtful point of departure for all our arguments: no, it belongs to the essence of what we call an argument. The system is not so much the point of departure, as the element in which arguments have their life.

(Obviously Witt was writing before the Space Race) Pay attention to the language of "systems."

>104. I am for example also convinced that the sun is not a hole inthe vault of heaven.
>105. All testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system. And this system is not a more or less arbitrary and doubtful point of departure for all our arguments: no, it belongs to the essence of what we call an argument. The system is not so much the point of departure, as the element in which arguments have their life.
>106. Suppose some adult had told a child that he had been on the moon. The child tells me the story, and I say it was only a joke, theman hadn’t been on the moon; no one has ever been on the moon;the moon is a long way off and it is impossible to climb up thereor fly there. – If now the child insists, saying perhaps there is away of getting there which I don’t know, etc. what reply could I make to him? What reply could I make to the adults of a tribe who believe that people sometimes go to the moon (perhaps that is how they interpret their dreams), and who indeed grant that there are no ordinary means of climbing up to it or flying there? –But a child will not ordinarily stick to such a belief and will soon be convinced by what we tell him seriously.1
>07. Isn’t this altogether like the way one can instruct a child to believe in a God, or that none exists, and it will accordingly be able to produce apparently telling grounds for the one or the other?
>108. “But is there then no objective truth? Isn’t it true, or false,that someone has been on the moon?” If we are thinking withinour system, then it is certain that no one has ever been on themoon. Not merely is nothing of the sort ever seriously reported to us by reasonable people, but our whole system of physics forbid sus to believe it. For this demands answers to the questions “How did he overcome the force of gravity?” “How could he live without an atmosphere?” and a thousand others which could not be answered. But suppose that instead of all these answers we metthe reply: “We don’t know howone gets to the moon, but those who get there know at once that they are there; and even you can’t explain everything.” We should feel ourselves intellectually very distant from someone who said this.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)22:59 UTC+1 No.5194250 Report

The people who propagate this idea that TLP and PI and completely incompatible are usually people who have never read those books (or read them very superficially). PI is very much a continuation from TLP, he only contradicts it's dogmatism.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:01 UTC+1 No.5194257 Report

>>5194244

>109. “An empirical proposition can be
tested ” (we say). But how? and through what?
>110. What counts
as its test? – “But is this an adequate test? And, if so, must it not be recognizable as such in logic?” – As if giving grounds did not come to an end sometime. But the end is not an ungrounded presupposition: it is an ungrounded way of acting.
>111. “I know that I have never been on the moon.” That sounds different in the circumstances which actually hold, to the way it would sound if a good many men had been on the moon, and some perhaps without knowing it. In this
case one could give grounds for this knowledge. Is there not a relationship here similar to that between the general rule of multiplying and particular multiplications that have been carried out? I want to say: my not having been on the moon is as sure a thing for me as any grounds I could give for it.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:01 UTC+1 No.5194258 Report

>>5194250
This is what I've been saying for a while. For some reason, it's sometimes espoused that TLP should just be forgotten, or skipped over.

It's very important to know where Wittgenstein was coming from; and TLP, itself, houses valid ideas -- despite Wittgenstein dismissing some prior thoughts.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:03 UTC+1 No.5194268 Report

>>5194250
>The people who propagate this idea that TLP and PI and completely incompatible are not posting ITT

No charge for the repairs. And as long as we're slinging mud, while I agree - and have said as much already - that the differences are overstated, I find something objectionably contrarian and worshipful about the desperate attempt to cobble them together into a unified whole. As though it must not be allowed that Vicky was WRONG about something or god-help-us CHANGED HIS MIND.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:04 UTC+1 No.5194276 Report

>>5194230

Sorry, couldn't help myself, you were just so clearly doing it.

Witt claimed in the preface of the TLP to have solved all the problems of philosophy. But what was philosophy at this point in history? It was, from Witt's perspective, logical positivism, which was the dominant doctrine at that time. As I've said before in this thread, the TLP should be viewed as a meta-critique of logical positivism.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:05 UTC+1 No.5194282 Report

>>5194276
>Sorry, couldn't help myself, you were just so clearly doing it.

No. But by all means continue to bluster, I enjoy a good bullshit artist in full flow and you have a lovely voice.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:06 UTC+1 No.5194284 Report

>>5194268
I don't think people have tried to unify them together, because that's a somewhat-futile thing to do; but, one can use material from both -- which I think is the more important take-away.

People accept Wittgenstein changed his mind -- and thought some things wrong about what he previously thought -- but, some people might take it too far and think ALL of his prior thought is, therefore, wrong, as well.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:08 UTC+1 No.5194288 Report

>>5194284
>some people might take it too far

Some people do and I've said as much (and said that I've said as much). Some other people say things like >>5193836 which is risibly OTT and, I'd say, a clear example of the cobbling-together tendency.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:13 UTC+1 No.5194301 Report

>>5193836
This is true except for the fact that Witty actually did intend TLP to be the be-all-end-all of Phil. The difference between him and the Positivists was that he lamented this and the P's celebrated it and tried to push it further. Witty's insight into the main ideas behind PI was very much an epiphanic moment for him.

>>5194276
LP didn't start until the late 20s.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:13 UTC+1 No.5194303 Report

>>5194157
>>5194244
>>5194257

>>5194288
>>5194282
>>5194284

With these passages in mind, consider the function of the axioms in the TLP. They are simply taken for granted--why? That seems like a bit of question begging, doesn't it? That this is precisely what is to be demonstrated! It becomes clearer what Witt is up to, though, when we understand these as the "river-bed" of natural science.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:18 UTC+1 No.5194321 Report

>>5194303
>With these passages in mind, consider the function of the axioms in the TLP. They are simply taken for granted--why? That seems like a bit of question begging, doesn't it?

OK, I just realised you have literally no clue what you're talking about. G'night.

>>5194301
>LP didn't start until the late 20s.

This, too. Most academic references to TLP I've seen cite it as a foundational text, not as a 'meta-critique' (going to pretend that's an actual thing just for shits and giggles).
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:19 UTC+1 No.5194326 Report

>>5194301

Logical Positivism has its roots in the work of Frege (among others), who was writing his major works in the last few years of the 19th century.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:21 UTC+1 No.5194340 Report

>>5194326
Everything 'has its roots' in something, fuck off.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:21 UTC+1 No.5194341 Report

>>5194321

Yes, I'm presenting a controversial interpretation of the TLP that conflicts with your received opinion, so I must have no idea what I'm talking about.

A little anecdote to keep in mind, too: After his dissertation hearing, Wittgenstein is reported to have approached Bertrand Russell, slap him on the back, and say something to the effect of "Well, old chap, that sure was fun, but I doubt you'll ever understand what it was I was getting at." Now consider Russell's introduction to the TLP, which is the standard interpretation, and which Wittgenstein was vocally unhappy with.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:23 UTC+1 No.5194347 Report

>>5194340

Yes, and this was the atmosphere of philosophy in Germany and Great Britain during the first several decades of the 20th century. This is completely non-controversial.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:23 UTC+1 No.5194355 Report

>>5194326
That's a bit like saying Kant has his roots in Plato. An exaggerated example, but you get my meaning. Frege and Russel inspired Witt's TLP and it was the TLP that inspired the Vienna circle that Logical Positivism was born out of.

The point is that Logical Positivism did not exist when Witt wrote TLP, and to say that it was inspired by Frege is a bit misleading.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:24 UTC+1 No.5194357 Report

>>5194321

Also, seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

>Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

What is "The World is all that is the case" if not just that?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:25 UTC+1 No.5194365 Report

>>5194355

see >>5194347
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:26 UTC+1 No.5194375 Report

>>5194357
Are you trying to say TLP begs the question? If so, pic related
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:28 UTC+1 No.5194385 Report

>>5194365
>>5194347
Even if I conceded that Positivism or Positivist-like thought was around before 1920, TLP isn't a critique of it. It's an affirmation of it.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:29 UTC+1 No.5194389 Report

>>5194375

No.

What I have said, as I have said before, is that TLP is both a description or demonstration of the language game of natural science, and a meta-critique of logical positivism and related doctrines.

Look over those passages from On Certainty again. The axioms of the TLP are the river-bed. Science NEEDS these axioms, even if they are themselves possible subject to change. This should not keep us from doing science--for from it. But we should not delude ourselves into a naive naturalism--or that we have standing to say reductionary things about ethics or aesthetics or whatever--when our whole methodological apparatus stands on such grounds
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:31 UTC+1 No.5194399 Report

>>5194385

And I am disagreeing with you. I have presented some evidence for why I have this disagreement.

But consider Witt's behavior towards the Vienna Circle. He treated it with absolute disdain, reading poetry when he was expected to produce brilliant new insights into the logical apparatus of language. Does this sound like an affirmation?
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:33 UTC+1 No.5194409 Report

>>5194341

Two things before I stop replying. Thing the first: axioms by their nature are assumed truths. One does not attempt to prove axioms, that is a nonsensical idea - axioms are that on which one rests a proof. Asserting a set of axioms is not 'question-begging', indeed, there's a sense in which it's the precise fucking opposite. Question-begging is the assumption in one's argument of the claim one is attempting to prove. So it turns out that you're the one who should have googled it, funny that.

Thing the second being more minor - the anecdote you refer to - if it took place at all, Vicky being the subject of many an apocryphal story - took place during his oral defence of the Tractatus when Cambridge was considering whether to grant him a Ph.D and it was a hand on the shoulder, not a pat on the back, and it was not Russell (though Russell was present) but some other dude whose name escapes me, possible Moore though I think maybe not.

Now seriously. Fuck off.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:33 UTC+1 No.5194412 Report

>>5193073
Jew isn't an ethnicity, fucktard
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:36 UTC+1 No.5194434 Report

>>5194409

>Two things before I stop replying. Thing the first: axioms by their nature are assumed truths. One does not attempt to prove axioms, that is a nonsensical idea - axioms are that on which one rests a proof. Asserting a set of axioms is not 'question-begging', indeed, there's a sense in which it's the precise fucking opposite. Question-begging is the assumption in one's argument of the claim one is attempting to prove. So it turns out that you're the one who should have googled it, funny that.

Man, you're like almost there, but then you just turn away from what's staring you in the face.

I think Witt's point is that any system of knowledge is self-grounding (autochthonous), which is begging the question exactly. Once again, review the sections of On Certainty I have provided and this becomes much clearer.

You are correct about that anecdote, it was not Russell. The point remains, I think.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:37 UTC+1 No.5194440 Report

By denying the existence of a universal reference point Wittgenstein shot philosophy in the foot and stopped the advancement of philosophical thought. He got stuck at a particular point in his quest for knowledge, one that most people manage to move beyond. With a mind like his, he could have unified the disparate disciplines and bridged the gap between empiricism and rationalism, but instead he got caught up in a pool of his own shit, and now the humanities and humanity are suffering for it.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:37 UTC+1 No.5194443 Report

>>5194399
That's because he wasn't happy about it. That's pretty much the only difference between early Witt and an early LP.

>>5194389
I think I understand what you're TRYING to say but if I do then what you're getting at wasn't explored by Witt until way after TLP
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:40 UTC+1 No.5194451 Report

>>5194399
You're basically saying that Wittgenstein was Bane, and it was all part of his plan.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:42 UTC+1 No.5194460 Report

>>5194443

What I am saying is that it was, but that the TLP was too cryptic to be understood correctly, and its interpreters merely read into it what they expected. I don't think the ideas were fully developed until much later, but they were certainly present in the TLP. Section 6 is illuminating in this regard, I think.

I don't think Witt's behavior was the result of depressive sullenness. He was an ornery fellow, absolutely, but the stories from his meetings with the Vienna Circle present him as rather mischievous, like a student poking fun at a stodgy old professor.
>>
The cats 07/26/14(Sat)23:43 UTC+1 No.5194461 Report

>>5194412
Ashkenazim and shephardic jews are in fact ethnicities and jews have known genetic disorders such as tay sachs disease. There is a reason people "look jewish" and are "atheists but still jewish". Israel is a racial apartheid state.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:44 UTC+1 No.5194463 Report

>>5194451

No. I think there was a development in Wittgenstein's ideas, and that they became more sophisticated with time, but that the seeds of PI and On Certainty, etc, are readily seen in TLP, and that to construe these works as somehow a break with other is missing the point entirely.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:47 UTC+1 No.5194477 Report

I couldn't form an opinion on him because he's out of my range of expertise, I'll never be able to understand him because he's got equations in his book.

Which is unfortunate I guess, but there are a lot of things I'll never do and it would be a waste of time to fuss over them all, or any of them really.

All I can say about him regards his personal life.

All I know about him is that he like Cowboy Movies, Detective Stories, Meat Pies. He may have gone to school with Adolf Hitler and been such a cocky bastard that he set the young Fuhrer's opinion against the Jews forever (but that's just a theory). His lectures were exhausting and took place in a empty room late in the night.

He beat a kid for not knowing math, which I think makes him a very naughty man(which has no bearing on his philosophical output mind you.). There is no reason for everyone to know math. The world relies on unskilled labour and many people have been able to be successful with a marginal education. For me, the jury's still out on corporal punishment. Pain is necessary in discipline and parents these days replace corporal punishment with mental trick which are meant to provoke psychological anguish. Even for the time, however, Wittgenstein was unnecessarily harsh. The normal corrective for giving a wrong answer was a single switch on the hand, which Wittgenstein exceeded.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:48 UTC+1 No.5194481 Report

>>5194434
>self-grounding (autochthonous), which is begging the question exactly.

Jesus fucking Christ just stop.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:50 UTC+1 No.5194492 Report

>>5194481

Dude, I'm sorry you have such a narrow band of understanding. That's very unfortunate for you. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that I don't know what I'm talking about. All you've managed to do is dig your heels in about the standard interpretation, while I have provided textual evidence and reasoning in support of my own interpretation.

You don't get what question begging is. That's fine, I guess. You don't understand what Wittgenestein was up to in On Certainty, and what this implies about the TLP. That's fine, too.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:51 UTC+1 No.5194498 Report

>>5194477
>He may have gone to school with Adolf Hitler and been such a cocky bastard that he set the young Fuhrer's opinion against the Jews forever (but that's just a theory).

'Theory' would be a major promotion. They went to the same Realschule, that's a fact, but Hitler was so smart they kept him back a year to serve as an example to the younger kids, and Vicky was such a dunce that they promoted him a year to give the older kids a punching-bag, so despite being the same age they never shared a class.

I tried to buy the book about this 'theory' but the Amazon seller stiffed me.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:53 UTC+1 No.5194502 Report

>>5194492

If you're lucky, in a few years you'll remember this thread and blush. If not, you'll stay like this forever. Time will tell.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:54 UTC+1 No.5194505 Report

>>5194481

Here's what I mean:

You follow a chain of questions about the grounds of your propositions until you hit bed rock, and your spade is turned. At this point, when your interlocutor presses the question "But what grounds THAT?" all you are able to reply with is "well, this is simply what I do." And then you've hit a circle.

All knowledge systems have this spade turning aspect at their "foundation," including natural science.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:54 UTC+1 No.5194506 Report

>>5194460
>>5194463
Then I agree with you, but I absolutely contend the idea Witt had PI thoughts in his head when writing TLP, or that you can understand PI by reading TLP. His insight into those new ideas were very much a turning point - well maybe not a 'turning point' but it was definitely epiphanic for him. He realised there was more to it than what he had previously thought - not that the old ideas were wrong, but that there was more to it.

This is the only thing I disagree about and I'm only now realising how trivial it is so I'm going to leave it there.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:55 UTC+1 No.5194512 Report

>>5194505
>"well, this is simply what I do." And then you've hit a circle.

This is not a circle. It is a point.

There will be no further discussion.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:56 UTC+1 No.5194518 Report

>>5194506
Furher: TLP is to PI what men are to humanity. You cannot understand the whole of humanity just by studying men.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:57 UTC+1 No.5194522 Report

>>5194512

It's a circle in the question begging sense, the fallacy sense. "This is just what I do" is not a satisfying answer, it simply assumes itself as its own ground.

Come on, you can think more critically then that.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:58 UTC+1 No.5194533 Report

>>5194522
>it simply assumes itself as its own ground.

ie, 'it is an axiom'.
>>
Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)23:59 UTC+1 No.5194538 Report

>>5194518

Oh, I agree. I just think that people hear this story about Wittgenstein's work, that he made a radical break with the TLP in his later work, and that therefore the TLP is only useful for setting context--and I think this story is not only false, but leads people who are interested in Wittgenstein down the wrong path.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:01 UTC+1 No.5194545 Report

>>5194533

i.e. it takes a premise as a conclusion
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:03 UTC+1 No.5194552 Report

>>5194538
>but leads people who are interested in Wittgenstein down the wrong path.

I get somewhat upset when people suggest to people who are interested in getting into Wittgenstein go straight for PI. It REALLY does a disservice to understand Wittgenstein's thought and changes -- and not even as a contextual matter; both works need appreciation.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:04 UTC+1 No.5194556 Report

>>5194533
>>5194545
>>5194512

Do you see the circle we're in?
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:04 UTC+1 No.5194557 Report

>>5194545

No. Axioms are not conclusions.

This is all about how badly you want to embarrass yourself at this point.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:06 UTC+1 No.5194566 Report

>>5194552

I have told people that, but only because PI is so much more accessible. A lot of people will look at the nodes and the layout and so forth of TLP and just get scared.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:07 UTC+1 No.5194571 Report

>>5194557

You can use a conclusion, or a "sticky" proposition, or a definition, as a premise, as an axiom. One of Witt's points is that these are at the foundation of all systems of knowledge.

The axioms of the TLP are taking rather controversial metaphysical propositions for granted. That's begging the question, if you're of a contrary opinion. But these are both the conclusions for naturalist philosophers, and the axioms of the scientific method.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:09 UTC+1 No.5194574 Report

>>5194556
This, when you get down to this level the argument ceases to even mean anything.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:09 UTC+1 No.5194576 Report

>>5194557
>>5194571

I think the major issue in your misunderstanding is conceiving of all of this as static--that axioms don't change, and are not interchangeable, whereas Witt is arguing that actually they do and can be, even if they don't or change only subtly over very long periods of time.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:09 UTC+1 No.5194577 Report

Just read his biography and STFU.

philosophy is gay
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:09 UTC+1 No.5194578 Report

>>5194571

OK, on sober reflection I have to grant a solid 8/10.
>>
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)00:10 UTC+1 No.5194582 Report

>>5194566
>>5194552
I think PI is fine as a starting point as long as you emphasise that it works as a centerpiece for his thought. You can branch from that to any other work of his.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.