Why did he kill Philosophy?
>>274868
To guide mankind beyond philosophy. Wittgenstein was a philosophical ubermensch.
>>274868
readers of Plato killed philosophy
>>274891
this
marx killed philosophy desu
>>274868
can someone explain to me what this man did? I've never read any of his work and i have no idea of what OP is referring to directly.
Autism. Bigger question is why he wasted all his money? His family was the second richest behind the Rothschilds.
>>275232
he's referring to a common misunderstanding of wittgenstein's work
it's the idea that witt's work can be boiled down to "philosophy is nothing more than a misuse of language"
if they actually took the time to read his work they'd see he's not saying that at all
where he gets close is his idea that philosophy along the lines of defining things eg
"what is justice"
"what is good"
what is beauty"
is just a case of taking the way we ordinary use those words and tying ourselves in nots through this mis-use of language
witt's work is divided into two parts. the first part is what the second part is in reaction against, as in he thinks his early work was completely wrong
he is a philosopher of language btw, just that
a small sexction of philosophy
he did no such thing as killing philosophy
>>275232
Tried to bridge philosophy into modern linguistics I think. He also went to elementary school with Hitler.
>>275259
thank you /his/torian
>>275261
Oh shit. Also Hayek was his cousin.
>>275285
>hitler went from having the JUST haircut to being the most notorious dictator of all time
What went right?
>>275232
Don't worry, I guarantee the vast swath of replies to your post/readers on this board haven't read him either. He was a student of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, famously publishing a very famous book in 1921 called the Tractatus that attempted to define the relation between logic and language, and a somewhat kantian initiative to delimit science and philosophy. It was infamously cryptic but extremely influential on a group known as the Vienna circle (particularly Waismann and Carnap). It set the agenda (for the most part) for anglo-american philosophy in the early half of the twentieth century, however some years later (after a famous colleague of his F. P. Ramsey raised concerns about the text) he repudiated the large brunt of his former views (or so he is interpreted to have, its a controversial issue) and adopted a more holistic and anti-systematic approach to language (its hard not to be reductive when explaining his work, most of it is extremely technical (and even the logical notation is decades old) but the few non-technical details people gobble up). He's responsible for dozens of innovation in logic and many persuasive arguments that help repudiate solipsistic/individual explanations of the origins of language with something now know as the PLA (private language argument). He published only the tractatus in his lifetime and most of his works are simply manuscripts he left or lectures he dictated to small groups of students. His philosophical work was entangled with a strange metaphilosophical stance (best elucidated in the "Philosophy" section of the big typescript which is available in the wiley blackwell version of the book (its massive) or a tidy little Hackett collection called the Philosophical Occasions) where (and I will be challenged on this probably) he propounds this weird theoretical quietism, holding that philosophy doesn't make "progress" per say but exposes misleading analogies or senseless questions/statements to be meaningless
>>275294
This hair is known to curse all who bear it.
>>274868
he didn't
he ushered in a different age
>>275259
(cont from >>275301)
he unfortunately once made the claim that philosophy in this sense was a "therapy" (which sadly caught on and become sloganistic) and it was very influential on Oxford thinkers at the time such as P F Strawson and J L Austin. The interest in his work (which is largely technical) mainly revolves around his biography (Ray Monk wrote a very famous one) because he was an exceedingly eccentric and focused man. with his, Wilfrid Sellar's, Quine's, and Austin's work, logical positivism and reductive empiricism were largely overthrown. VERY many philosophers study Wittgenstein's work and he has had a profound influence on most analytic anglo-american philosophers, HOWEVER almost none of them (save a few strange) hold his metaphilosophical stances on philosophical problems simply being "puzzles" that can be shown to be senseless or simply tautological. He did have a much more humbling effect on how they approach philosophy however. Very few if any make grand pronouncements about philosophy's abilities to grasp ultimate truths anymore.
Most of his work is essentially unapproachable without knowledge of the analytic tradition, he was a philosopher's philosopher (like Quine) and his work is not very well self contained. I'd recommend a few texts but if you're unfamiliar with him it more than likely means you're unfamiliar with his predecessors. Read his biography however, even without a knowledge of his work he's fucking fascinating. Stay away from anything P M S Hacker (Peter) has to say about his work.
>you'll never have a crazy autist like Wittgenstein be your grade school teacher in Vienna and cane you for being a degenerate
>>275340
>Very few if any make grand pronouncements about philosophy's abilities to grasp ultimate truths anymore.
In other words, he killed philosophy?
>>275361
Many would argue that was never philosophy's initiative from the start, and most interpretations of any philosopher's work that would have them grasping an "ultimate truth" are misguided. Demolishing Truth with a capital T has been on the agenda ever since the early days of the american pragmatists, in fact the philosophy of science has been hip to it for decades too, they talk about the USEFULNESS of theories rather than their truth. Richard Rorty is right up your alley, he's a more popular/accessible american philosopher with a very famous text called "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". We aren't going to step outside history and grasp some eternal universal law about the way things are any time soon.
>>275285
>you never got to play hide and seek with little Hitler and cheer him up a bit
>>275409
It's weird cause they were both autists, and born 6 days apart. I wonder if there was something in the air during that time in Austria-Hungary that caused that.
>>275434
>both autists
>hitler a charismatic orator
>wittgenstein a decorated soldier
why do I doubt that
>>275442
BECAUSE YOU IGNORE WHAT AUTISM IS, AND MERELY ASSUME THAT IT CONSISTS IN MENTAL IMPAIRMENT.
>>275380
>in fact the philosophy of science has been hip to it for decades too, they talk about the USEFULNESS of theories rather than their truth
Yes, the gratuitous pursuit of knowledge seems to have completely disappeared from scientific discourse, every publication now tries to justify its usefulness.
>>275442
Giving "charismatic" speeches was literally the only thing Hitler could do, and it was likely due to his use of meth. Read about his life before WW1 and you'll see the life of a forever alone autist.
As for Wittgenstein, he was well known for having lots of eccentricities. If he wasn't so smart, the people he worked with at Cambridge would have tossed his ass. He directed artillery in the military, so it wasn't like he was leading men or anything.
>>275494
>he directed artillery
you know he demanded to be transferred to the front lines right
deliberately
he wanted to face death
>>275484
Usefulness in that context means the ability to generate new predictions that can be tested, not usefulness in terms of solving a problem. It's a measure of how well the model predicts nature, since knowing how nature "actually" works is extremely difficult.
>>275301
>weird theoretical quietism, holding that philosophy doesn't make "progress" per say but exposes misleading analogies or senseless questions/statements to be meaningless
not only philosophy, but any use of the imagination wherein lies some part called the reason by people. and this part of the imagination called the reason is not always the same over individuals, and over time. => abstractions are nihilistic and the best way to live is to tame our mind/imagination to access our various nuances of conciousness.
>>275533
>>Usefulness in that context means the ability to generate new predictions that can be tested, not usefulness in terms of solving a problem
well the predictions are the major criterion to order theories, models, concepts, so you can say that the predictions are a major part of the resolution of the problem ''how to order theories, especially given the perpetual sterility of the scientists to tell us how their expensive activities tie to truth, knowledge, objectivity, reality''.
>>275494
Reading up on Hitler's drug abuse was fascinating.
>>275343
>tfw you will never have your ears boxed by a frustrated Wittgenstein.
Why live?
>>275872
It explains so much. The entire Wehrmacht was abusing meth. It allowed for breakthrough success, as well as war crimes.
>>275259
This really undersells Wittgenstein. He certainly didn't think ALL philosophy was the misuse of language, just that most so-called problems or paradoxes really stemmed from "language on holiday".
The Late Wittgenstein is fucking mysterious because he genuinely doesn't have any interest in telling people where this method to "dissolve" problems should be used, he was more trying to tease people into a different way of looking at these problems and make them think and work it out for themselves.That, really, is his true "quietism".
>>275484
Isn't this what Nietzsche advocated? "There is no truth, only interpretation" meant that all that mattered if an idea was useful.
>>276041
But senpai there are logical statements that are true by the sole nature of their form? a = a is true.
>>275285
i've heard that picture's inaccurate. basically Hitler was a year behind, and Witty was a year ahead, thus it was impossible for them to be in the same class. The Jew of Linz says they got in a spat but Ray Monk says there's no proof and he's pretty much the most credible voice on Wittgenstein's history.
The majority of his brothers kill themselves. The other lost his arm, and became a successful piano. Ludwig himself strongly considered suicide and was autistic as fuck. His poor father. Just wanted his sons to continue running the successfully family business.
>>278682
They had to at least interact with each other. Hitler probably hated him because he came from wealth.
>>279286
>The majority of his brothers kill themselves. The other lost his arm, and became a successful piano.
>and became a successful piano.
>>279286
I would hate being pigeonholed into a family business too. What if I don't give a fuck about manufacturing coat hangers or whatever
>>275259
>he is a philosopher of language btw, just that
Wrong. He was a metaphilosopher - he talked about philosophy itself by analyzing language.
>>278320
Yeah, but some philosophers dispute if there is such a thing as a syntactic-analytic distinction.
>>278320
It's not that there are not truths; just that there is no Truth.
Since Philophical Investigations refutes a lot of ideas in the Tractus should one read the Tractus first to get an understanding of the situation or just skip the Tractus altogether?
>>279503
The differences between early and later Wittgenstein are wildly exaggerated; there is a lot of important stuff in the Tractatus. I definitely think if you want to get the best out of him you should read the Tractatus first - if even just to understand why he changed his mind about it. It will help you to understand the Investigations even better.
>>279286
This is their father's fault. He over educated them from very earlier age. They couldn't handle overload well.
>>275494
You make it sound like directing artillery is an easy job.
>>279990
It's not, but it's not a job where you have to lead or really be social.
>>275946
>You will never have your pigtails pulled by a philosophical genius who is also one of the richest men in the world for not understanding algebra.
>>281495
>you will never be Francis Skinner
>you will never be one of Ludwigs sisters fawning over your amazingly smart brother and visiting him in Norway
>you will never wander through Vienna with a nearly-crazy Ludwig, throwing Hundert Schilling around like it's nothing
>you will follow Russell to the toilets to angrily scream at him about the incompleteness of language together with Witty
Yeah I'm gonna take the Wittgenstein family way out of life, see you.
>>279295
sounds like wishful thinking
did you interact with anyone in any other grade while you were in elementary school?
Do people default to Wittgenstein due to his eccentricities, and to look smarter than they really are?
>>281917
I don't know. Like I said in another thread, if you're gonna be a hardcore "muh formal logic" fag, why not obsess about Frege instead?
>>281925
>Having an interest in both doesn't work, I suppose?
I don't really see a lot of Frege threads, or Carnap threads. Which is weird considering all the hardcore positivists that seem to be around.
>>278320
>a = a is true.
but this is completely manufactured and you do not even know why you need truth in the first place. it is a choice to claim a=a.
abstractions does not give you anything but nihilism and the fantasy of taking such analytical conventions as knowledge shows how lost the rationalist is.
and anyway, the principle of strict identity has been soften, since now there are equivalences which seem to be more fertile, see homotopy.
>>274891
So true.
>>279352
same difference
Wittgenstein is basically Shiva - become the destroyer of retarded post enlightenment philosophical traditions. His best contributions are attacks (more like ICBM's) against the prevailing philosophical assumptions of his day.
He realized that philosophy without God was dead, and proceeded to prove it.
>>283014
>He realized that philosophy without God was dead, and proceeded to prove it.
rather, philosophy without praxis, so that retarded opinions are weed out.
>>279378
Yeah I know Quine would and did dispute that, but I'm fairly certain he acknowledged statements like that as true, maybe not an analytic statement, but a true one.
>>275232
Read this, it's short and good:
https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/1/?ui=2&ik=d87042403c&view=att&th=150f1e7188fa1f6a&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_igti50nh0&safe=1&zw&saddbat=ANGjdJ9Ckpo6EUHuzKrgkiq3bww3bSCeG_aPwxr9C28KA_lMOVa-Y8-b2WmPquW14MpcoOL84voPu10XQ4LgVnhVlsNBgLTYi7bYUfOCXqO8UlKTOmZQbFkD2voFAcjGUE9Lv16Ci9YObgvKOknl9ebpOyX0hyBVht7ZDIPQHkLBxjxCSXb1bhO5UVEq9IC0R3ctABQTxavDDl743LifQBdsgdgbDgTiiiSCo25vk-esmuNBGbe1kNwAR6oEFk6cL-91sG4zBKpiLC4OVQPBLBT_Gv2xuZRlp25EGoeT1U9t81bkQ_E6SMnTlp65x1IKJMS0mCa3rxuGXY9J0wQnfGbqfAFYBaJC-EsFZCWPxnLRt7Cd_V2QHEakqmpfIrouOLWifMMpu5wNKzup-PxObtoHpdkH1yOHwCAUCevLGMcQFlfb4UrzhgQUsGMxYt5Bw7ZFsfr9Qg2S2KWFXexfzL__SJFGDsSN3YuitRm-OsToJZRkHnM8_bcMOtLVlvrXlO6d44atYONJL6OQlsWP-0Db6xkF_SaMHvyJ4hUtdVKY973vBkJtlBaevXIwLFkjj3mfCSj0GhhafcKQA_46T59zrMjA6X2gC8ehKCyEUfF9UihnkX-eLhD3TqEMaIU
>>281925
Heidegger was arguably more influential than him.
>>283971
ffs anon
>>284005
>>283152
Where do you see anything about the significance of praxis in Wittgenstein? He almost certainly wouldn't abide by your arbitrary theoria/praxis dichotomy.
>>275340
is that you ray
