Wittgenstein's stuff has been defeated

>>7417392
>moby

>>7417402
By whom?

>>7417412
Curious as well.

So I read about half the Greeks, all of the existentialists and now Witty. I feel like shit is just going in circles at this point and there's no point in reading two or three highly similar philosophers nitpicking about semantics but saying the same thing

>>7417392
>tesla influenced edison
>jj abrahms
>moby

Trash it

>>7417392
This is such an awful image

>joyce coming off Tolstoy and not shakes
KEK

>>7417412
Everyone alive, including some dead, like Wittgenstein himself.

>JJ abrams
o_am_I_laffin.jpg

>>7418426
Explain. Any texts in particular?

>>7417392
I think Spinoza is reconcilable with the Tractatus, actually. Read both as phenomenologists and you'll start seeing comparisons.

>JJ Abrams influenced by Melies

This is retarded

>>7418426
wittgenstein backed off of saying that the tractatus was logically sound, but never backed off the claim that nothing absolutely true can be deduced

he essentially claimed that all philosophy could ever achieve was giving you a set of knowns when given a set of knowns, but a set of knowns STILL must be provided.

in maths we use the axioms, tough to imagine those being false. but what if its just that? tough to imagine. the greeks had similar axiomatic maths, but their axioms were different. the funny thing is that the greeks had a number of unstated but assumed axioms we dont have today, and our math does crazy fucking shit because of it. Awesome shit, but crazy. basically we only ever witness its applicability when we mess with, well crazy shit like electrons.


anyway thats a digression: we don't discover math we build it. we create it. think of the axioms (stated and unstated) as the foundation of a building, but that foundation can only build one complete building. we then assemble the axioms to show us what we've already assumed to be true.

thats why philosophy is medicine. essentially, Person B says "I believe X, Y, Z!"

person A says "hey, that's a contradiction, at least one of those things is not true, here let me show you why"

its obvious when someone says "I accept the axioms of mathematics and I also believe that triangles have greater than 180 degrees." less so when they say "I believe in the death penalty and banning planned parenthood" because the former is ALWAYS true, but because we're not intimately familiar with the 2nd persons inner set of MORAL axioms we cannot know for certain what they believe without hypocrisy without consulting them.

Its possible that with their set of moral laws they actually don't believe both without contradiction, and they would thank us for pointing it out. But its also possible that they do believe both without contradiction.

that's why you can never reach anything meaningful, because you can only build with what youre given. In mathematics we can at least say the blocks are uniform, but in moral philosophy? its why pseudo philosophers (pseudo because they have to know theres no hope of finding anything) are obsessed with finding "objective moral laws"

>>7418592
So Pyrrhonian skepticism?

All the shitty, shitty writers who have no arrows leading from their names.

>>7418611
yes

but without any moral ascriptions

greek/roman philosophy was actually very advanced and morally consistent. its why everyone assumed their science was so great which ended up stalling progress

>>7417392
Um, I don't see Pynchon on that list?

>>7418472
>I think Spinoza is reconcilable with the Tractatus, actually. Read both as phenomenologists and you'll start seeing comparisons.
Could you just give me a brief rundown of how this could be even possible instead of something incredibly vague?

>>7418592
I know English probably isn't your first language or something but were you just furiously adderall fuelled when you typed that because I could not discern even two coherently connected thoughts