/lit/ — I have 2 weeks to learn Wittgenstein

This Complicated Form of Life, Newton Garver

Anything by Peter Winch

Avoid overly analytic commentators, avoid Kripke, avoid “New Wittgenstein” “therapy” cultists

>>25337491
But I also need the understand the mathematical logic behind his work, not only his ideas.

You're fucked, best just say "Logic ultimately demonstrates its own logic, I can't add more" then swiftly depart.

Obviously Ray Monk's biography.

>>25337475 (OP)
Good luck. I had longer to think about it and can't really answer that.

>For the same reason the idealist’s appeal to ‘spatial spectacles’ is inadequate to explain the seeing of spatial relations because it cannot explain the multiplicity of these relations.

That's from the TLP. Later Wittgenstein after the rule paradox is where things turn into more of a 'just go do it' type of system. He mentions it as practice, he mentions it is application specific, and he also claims most of what is useful is empirically derived but it almost solidifies and hardens into a codification. This can be broken.

>look as much as you want but I'm not convinced there is an agreement on this

>promise to leave it as it is

>if that's a rule is it also subject to the paradox?

>>25337505
It definitely doesn't do this THOUGH the consistency of logic is undecidable

>>25337491
>Avoid overly analytic commentators, avoid Kripke
Wittgenstein is my favourite philosopher, quite literally consider him the first philosopher to touch me deeply in a way I understand, also the first philosopher to genuinely change my thought not merely its direction.

I've heard about Kripke. Can't remember if hes the influential one on language that cam before Witt or if thats Frege, regardless, Wittgenstein is so foundational to me, that as far as im concerned there is a Pre Wittgenstein time and a Post Wittgenstein time in philosophy, and asside from french philosophy around that time, I am almost strictly interested in post Wittgenstein philosophy because I cannot imagine anything that doesnt consider Wittgenstein in the future being meaningful.

I say this as somebody who desires to escape Wittgenstein's grasp. He was too right, too insightful, and if you take his conclusions completely, then philosophy is meant to end at him. And I don't want that, even though every day I interact with more and more people, more and more uses of language, I find that he is more and more right.

>>25338061
qrd?

>>25338081
qrd on what?

>>25338084
qrd on deez nuts bitch

File: Kurt Godel - slaying of nominalistic faggots.png (724 KB, 800x860)

>>25337475 (OP)
he invented the modern shitlib:
>uhhh define the word "violence"
thanks for all the shitty word games with these faggots Witty!
p.s.Godel's looking down laughing at your ass in hell

>>25339122
How does Godel disproves Wittgenstein.

>>25339128
Ludwig tried going after the incompleteness theorem and just embarrassed himself

>>25339128
Wittgenstein try to ontologically reduce metaphysics out of reality by claiming that all reality can be reduced do these logical tautologies (self-contained axioms); pretty much word knowledge and that word knowledge is subjectively arbitrary (we create our own metaphysics/solipsism (with some pluralizing mechanism he failed to ever define)).
Godel comes along (fucken hates Witty btw as a faggot jew atheist (such antinomy, talk about "fallen") that he tricks the whole faggot jew atheist club called the Vienna Circle that they are in that he's "one of them", and completely dismantles their Logical Positivism worldview in realtime by demonstrating effectively that reality can't formally fully describe itself (let alone simple formal axiomatic systems within it like mathematics); so Wittgenstein and his God-hating friends like Bertrand Russell objectively got their whole ontological atheistic materialistic nominalistic worldview wrong and pretty much have to accept that metaphysical arguments else they look like radically skeptical retards that don't want to admit it out of spite (not intellectual rigor).
You can't explain the universe with just logic alone or math alone or physics alone. Mereologically it doesn't add up; but then we still have to deal with these same gay incredulous arguments primarily from Leftists who want to be god(s) instead of serving a God/Logos.
see Apotheosis vs Theosis

>>25339152
>You can't explain the universe with just logic alone or math alone or physics alone.
in Wittgenstein's case: Godel proved that you can't explain reality with words alone (or lack there of).

>>25339165
It's also why Witty faded the fuck off toward the end of his career and kinda had to take the syncratic position of Nominal Realism: words create reality.
We cast spells at each other with words and grammar; shape/define/invent meaning (again this social constructionism is not a good philosophical position to hold as it's just sophisticated solipsism again/self-apotheosis).
Wittgenstein and Co's real meta-philosophy was "Any Philosophy but God".

File: Clown World.jpg (239 KB, 1200x676)

>>25339173
> it's just sophisticated solipsism again/self-apotheosis
When you think the name "Wittgenstein", think of think of this pic.
Signifier and Signified...

>>25339183
that faggot did A LOT of damage to my timeline...

>>25339152
>as a faggot jew atheist
I have never seen someone so uneducated on Wittgenstein posting on /lit/ before. You literally do not know the first thing about him, you believe in the modern lie about him being a homosexual that was spread by a fake note one of his early biographers read, you believe he remained an atheist his entire life when he completely changed his views on faith during the first world war and almost became a catholic monk, you believe he was in agreement with the Vienna Circle when he literally outright told them that they were interpreting the Tractatus wrong. You have no fucking clue about any of the things you're talking about.

>>25339211
On top of that, Wittgenstein literally had a girlfriend that was like 20 years younger than him at some point, but people still believe the lie about him being gay because he valued his friendship with Pinsent a lot despite neither of them ever writing anything romantic or sexual to each other.

>>25339122
>thanks for all the shitty word games with these faggots Witty!
what is this stupid dumb fucking retard talking about? anytime i see somebody use "game" as "not serious not real pass time activity!" I instantly shoot them, because they are proving Witt's point without realizing it, they have no cognizance though to understand such

Stupid thread full of stupid people. Not participating anymore. Forgot how people engage with "philosophy" here, they just throw out a name of a subset of philosophy, name it bad, and then pretend they disproved or established anything because no other retard knows enough to deconstruct or point out the fact that a retard just said or proved nothing, works doubly so if the school of thought is already preconceived as weak or illegitimate

>>25339228
This board is full of charlatans.

>>25339218
>>25339220
keep dickriding him

>>25339672
not an argument, concessioned out of existence.

>>25339233
>charlatans
philosophy has yet to produce a transcendent/wise man.
fucken charlatans the lot of you; petty human "gods"

>>25339675
What argument?
He didn't have one once it got dismantled.
Wittgenstein died with no solid worldview.
Sorry bro.

>>25337505
this would fool a psychology podcaster, not a philosophy professor

>>25339228
>>25339675
you POS sophist... trying to convince everyone the truth that the truth is not real.
fucken a...
Godel demonstrated to you thick obtuse fuckers that the Epistemology must be Ontological and Ethical; not an exclusive category unto itself: the TRUTH must be REAL in order for Philosophy to fucken even work and produce wisdom. Otherwise... IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.
It's why Godel was a Logical Theist since it turns out God fits the category of Living Truth (i.e. Epistemology True, Ontology Real, and Ethically Right).
So pretty please with sugar on top, start going to Church faggots and begin worshiping the Truth.
Time is not on your side...

File: ∕thread.png (385 KB, 853x480)

>>25339228
>>25339675
you POS sophist... trying to convince everyone the truth that the truth is not real.
fucken a...
Godel demonstrated to you thick obtuse fuckers that the Epistemology must be Ontological and Ethical; not an exclusive category unto itself: the TRUTH must be REAL in order for Philosophy to fucken even work and produce wisdom. Otherwise... IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.
It's why Godel was a Logical Theist since it turns out God fits the category of Living Truth (i.e. Epistemology True, Ontologically Real, and Ethically Right).
So pretty please with sugar on top, start going to Church faggots and begin worshiping the Truth.
Time is not on your side...

>>25339734
All you've done is convinced me that this Godel guy who's lauded for his theorem or whatever is actually a retard. Its always the ones closest to math and science that have such a comically childish narrow view of the world.

"Ontological and Ethical" Do any of these people ever have the self awareness to understand how much theyre baking into these terms? And how no matter how desperately they wish to seperate it from normal use, implications and platitudes, they cannot, because the fundamental basis for something even being communicable and understandable, is ceding "explanatory" (dont like this word but in this case, for the purpose of borrowing a term analytic retards love to express communication, its fine) power to the "people". The only flaw of Wittgenstein, (among another one which I dont consider a flaw but rather my inability to completely accept Wittgenstein's undeniable truthfulness) is he doesn't quite outline what underlying social facts about Humanity direct certain values enshrined through language.

File: real talk.jpg (23 KB, 250x250)

>>25339770
fuck you, why should I be ethical to you?
why engage in dialectics with you? (be honest PLEASE)
you want to start from baseline? why should I follow logic. because it's logical? you gonna hit me with that tautology... because that's the line that Wittgenstein took and it's not impressive then and it's not impressive now

>>25339793
>why should I follow logic. because it's logical?
I was already trending towards here, but Wittgenstein is what allowed me to finally abandon logic. I am done with overarching systems (for now) that come with a ton of assumed baggage. Wittgenstein really did succeed in what he set out in Philosophical Investigations. To give peace to people who dwell on these complex questions, never quite satisfied with the answer.

Maybe Wittgenstein couldnt create a completeness theorem, but what he offered in ending Philosophy was far more meaningful in understanding not just philosophy, but the world as it really is (Kant helped with this too) a world by Human societies, for Human societies, because only Human societies can see as Human societies see, and construct based on that.

I had heard opinions like this before, but the unique thing about philosophy isnt the opinion. Its the justification/demonstration. Its why I cant even reduce Wittgenstein to "Language as Use" because that word "Use" sneaks in a ton of baggage that doesnt appropriately capture PI. That's what conclusions do, thats what opinions do, that whats language does, what it is meant to do, give you a signifier so that you can understand, without ever needing to know whether a beetle is really in the box.

>>25339814
>what allowed me to finally abandon logic
I would say he phenomenologized logic and deontologized it from its universal category (making logic personal instead of general)
>I am done with overarching systems
I guess no to metaphysics then
> To give peace to people who dwell on these complex questions
It can be a comfortable lie. Hence why I was screaming about how Wittgenstein collapses into sophistry/solipsism since people can/will develop their own subjective internal logics and these logics will not be consistent and coherent with other peoples' logics (leading to eternal conflict since this can never be collapsed into a sole logic since that would invalidate Wittgenstein's "beliefs" on logic).

>Maybe Wittgenstein couldn't create a completeness theorem...
Hmm. So am I right to assume that you don't believe in the possibility of humans seeing the nature of things? Or that only through Human society can we see the "ding an sich" and address our nature(s)?

I'm in good faith trying to feel out your perspective here.

just watch the movie

>>25340483
what movie?

>>25340512
the wittgenstein movie

>>25337475 (OP)
Go watch that youtube video of the tractatus with the anime character in the background

>>25340557
its an alright video for Tractatus, but for Philo Investigations, reading the book is better

File: AI and the Death of Nominalism.png (204 KB, 1018x795)

Reminder /lit/:
Nominalism has been proven objectively/subjectively false.

File: voight-kampff.jpg (55 KB, 733x412)

>>25342200
and I will remind everyone here that AI Chatbots were the QED dream thesis of Wittgenstein and Co's philosophical endeavors.
Now that these "Language Daemons"/LLMs exist, we now have a clear ontological distinction between these Epistemic Objects (agents) and Epistemic subjects (people); which disproves Ontological Flatness and pure Nominalism.
We have demonstrable NPCs and PCs now and you can engage in dialectics with both of types (though only one actually has real epistemic qualia/experience and it's empirically testable (Reverse Turing Test)).

>>25342200
Kek imagine fishing for confirmation bias from the dumbest collection of human knowledge without understanding to ever exist.

>>25342242
Are you more real than a chatbot?
If so, Nominalism must be rejected.

>>25339122
Wittgenstein would hate modern liberals and language games is completely misused in this context fyi.
>>25339152
Wittgenstein was a Christian without any question what so ever. Btw. And he and Godel hardly interacted and both of them disliked the Vienna circle. Wittgenstein was the most antisemitic fellow you named.

>>25337475 (OP)
You cannot actually understand Wittgenstein without reading Principia Mathematica and on denoting. This needs to be abundantly clear. You cannot do it. Because it exists inside of Russell’s world.

This is basically impossible to do in two weeks.
The best I can tell you is that this book is extremely straight forward and it means exactly what it says without any ambiguity

>>25339876
>Hence why I was screaming about how Wittgenstein collapses into sophistry/solipsism since people can/will develop their own subjective internal logics and these logics will not be consistent and coherent with other peoples' logics (leading to eternal conflict since this can never be collapsed into a sole logic since that would invalidate Wittgenstein's "beliefs" on logic).
You have very clearly not read Wittgenstein. I almost respect your innocent resistance to Wittgenstein's truths. Wittgenstein truly is the greatest philosopher I've read yet. He has direct answers to all your retorts, just deepens how thorough, and well grounded his investigation was, even more than I ever realized when I was finished with it.

Search up Wittgenstein family resemblance for an answer to your claim of an eternal conflict.

>>25342242
>>25342246
for context, like all the great philosophers were dreaming for this moment: to have dialectics with something non-human. hence all the hypothetical "demons"
>>25342250
Either God's real or not.
Can't be Nominal/Excluded Middle.
(Witty's Universe can't be "a little pregnant" with the Logos)
I think he was very very smart, but I don't think he was a good philosopher.

>>25338061
Kripke is later. But on the whole, and I don't know how old you are or how long and to what extent you've studied philosophy for, but Wittgenstein's influence (whatever one thinks of it) wanes more every year. If the Wittgenstein of the 30s onward turned most philosophers upside-down, the last few decades have seen them turn themselves right-side-up again. As a former Witty fan in my younger years, I'm doubtful he'll have much stranglehold on future philosophers.

>I say this as somebody who desires to escape Wittgenstein's grasp. He was too right, too insightful, and if you take his conclusions completely, then philosophy is meant to end at him. And I don't want that, even though every day I interact with more and more people, more and more uses of language, I find that he is more and more right.
I've found that Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger lap him, and pretty soundly. I don't say that to demean your astonishment over him, and I think he's at least helpful in recovering a sense of the pre-theoretical viewpoint for philosophy, but the rest of it frankly amounts to fear of the immensity of the task and a desperation to make the complexity of life simple again, but life and thought are complex and tied up with all sorts of hopes, fears, and *problems*, not merely puzzles as he would've preferred.

>>25342242
and I'll remind you that there is a non-zero probability that chatbots frequent this board along with real humans jeets don't count so the antinomy is real and we are interacting beings of varying ontological realities (to you I could be a very sophisticated chatbot, but I don't think they stochastically say nigger very often do they?).

>>25339165
That's not really the bearing of the Incompleteness Theorems. They're significant for certain kinds of formal logic, but they don't damage any of the rest of philosophy, only the desire for philosophy to resemble or be constituted wholly of formal logic. Godel went on to develop ontological proofs of God, after all.

>>25339173
I don't think so. That's more true of the "and Co." but not of Wittgenstein himself. Not enough of his readers take his religious feelings seriously.

File: IMG_0120.jpg (16 KB, 320x213)

>>25338042
> >For the same reason the idealist’s appeal to ‘spatial spectacles’ is inadequate to explain the seeing of spatial relations because it cannot explain the multiplicity of these relations
Yet another retard gets filtered by the Transcendental Aesthetic by reading it as empirical psychology. These guys only sound smart to one another.

>>25342336
Aristotle already proved the incompleteness theorem in book 1 of the Posterior Analytics.

File: Heidegger.jpg (58 KB, 686x386)

>>25342286
No it is. A lot of people try to isolate it purely to formal axiomatic systems in order to obfuscate the philosophical implications of his discovery.
When applied say with Set Theory and Mereology, the Incompleteness Theorems effectively dismantle any certitude in anthropocentric Philosophy as any possible formally reducible system can never wholly explain reality complete AND consistently (thus Reductionism even in Formal Logic is humorously incomplete on a metalogical level). The sum will always be less than the epistemic parts/axioms here and so it'd be unethical to assume wholeness for the sake of preserving faith in anthropocentricity.
Really it forces the Philosophical conversation into Theology and I don't think any atheist with apotheotic hopes really wants that; I mean everybody wants to rule the world... right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGCdLKXNF3w

>>25342251
I don't give a shit about that dead man.
I'm interested in you. In your philosophy. Your worldview. Your experience.
That's my aim here. What is your book?

>>25342346
I feel you anon. It makes me think of Hegel thinking he had discovered a panlogicist theory of everything while Fichte insists on irreducible facticity. Or Plato/Aristotle, a similar divide occurs there.

>>25342346
>faith in anthropocentricity
and I will remind you dear anons that AI agents are beating us in the dialectics game; so take that as you will that humans are more willing to talk and believe AI agents than other people... (even if they are known to hallucinate).
mankind trusts hallucinating calculators now more than fellow people

File: feels when chuds cry.jpg (24 KB, 512x384)

>>25342362
things are changing.
people are changing.
imagine a strange attractor being placed into a chaotic system that straightens it all out.

>>25342346
It isn't, the theorem applies to certain kinds of formal logic. It doesn't apply to almost any other philosopher's work before the 19th century. Aristotle already comes out and says there will be certain principles that turn out to be unprovable, and he thereby clarifies some of the limits and scope of philosophical activity without getting the wheels of his work stuck in the mud. The Incompleteness theorems are a big blow to a certain logicist conception of philosophy, but not to philosophy simply, nor even to proving things in general. Sucks for algebraists, but everyone else still goes on.

>>25342294
Wittgenstein did challenge the transcendental aesthetic. You can always claim the most basic concept of philosophy. This is a freebie. It's more basic than substance so I'm not sure why you think this was a retort but you're always welcome to stay there.