Is this a good place to start with Wittgenstein? Or should I start with another book or another author?
>hairdresser: so what do you want
>wittgenstein: I want the flat top
>hairdresser: got you senpai
he sliced it off with one swipe of his katana
>>8063767
Start with A.J. Ayer - "Language, Truth, and Logic".
No it isn't. That book assumes you've read his prior work.
Best place to start is a contemporary introduction to Philosophy of Language and its history, which will introduce you to a broad range of theories, Wittgenstein's among them (yes, PI was a theory of language despite what some might say; if you talk about something and state that that something is such-and-such then you're basically introducing a theory), concerning the relation between language and the world. Then you can dip into either Tractatus or PI or both. Both books are cryptic as hell so you might as well read some secondary literature first; someone like Hacker will suffice.
Damn thats bad graphic design on the book cover. His hair is just cut off. fuck
t_ _ g _ _ k _
>>8063780
this is a hot story i came to it
>>8063817
it's OC
>>8063780
>mfw it was the day when Wittgenstein realized that his account of language is bunk and that the hairdresser--a proponent of literal, Fregean semantics--was right
>>8063801
>>8063806
I just have a bad feeling with reading secondary literature first, cause I think that when I finally read the original work I will always the "interpretation" of this secondary authors on my mind and it will warp the experience of reading his theory and forming my own opinion, so I always try to read the author first and secondary literature after, even with hard authors such as Lacan, is this a dumb feeling to have when reading philosophy?
>>8063847
I understand what you're getting at but I think you're cultivating a bad habit there. I don't see any reason why you couldn't change your opinion about Wittgenstein and his views after reading secondary literature. This sort of implies that you won't be able to register the point/place where you're disagreeing with something you've read about Wittgenstein earlier which could only mean that you're not taking nearly enough notes, are a poor student, or have some sort of memory disorder. The thing is, it is very unlikely that you're going to reach and form a unique interpretation of Wittgenstein that no one else before you has thought of. So if you want to be efficient about it, read as much secondary literature as you can stomach, jot down the differing interpretations of him, read the original work and see if you disagree with any interpretation known to you. You can also read something like PI and a secondary literature on PI side by side.
>>8063767
nah, blue brown is the way to start.
>>8063906
Yea, maybe I just had bad luck with secondary literature and because maybe it is different when talking about psychoanalysis, it is just a feeling that at some point you realize you are reading the reading of someone and to me after reading someone else's reading there will always be an "invitation" to find what they found in the text, or to fall in the traps that they fell. I just think it really disrupts the reading after, by having read the explanation first and then reading the text which generates the questions, after you have the answers the questions you create are always towards the answers you have, at least in my own experience and people I talk to.
>>8064138
Actually there was an essay by Ayer on his relationship with Wittgenstein where he remarks just how enraged Wittgenstein was with his summary of Wittgenstein's thought (Ayer once opined on it for some British newspaper or radio-programme at the time). So I don't think what you're telling us here is accurate.
>>8063767
Frege's "On Sense and Reference" and Russell's "On Denoting" would be nice previous reads. ALso the Tractatus (search for a commented edition).
>>806426
Yes it is
>>8063767
what about this?
>>8066807
This graphic was not written by someone who knows much about philosophy or Wittgenstein, but it's not awful
>>8063806
not really, its necessary if you want the full historical picture but it can be read on its own. However you absolutely need some secondary sources with PI. otherwise you dont even know what point hes trying to make. I guess reading the sep page on frege's language theory would be a good primer on the historical background.
>>8063806
>(yes, PI was a theory of language despite what some might say; if you talk about something and state that that something is such-and-such then you're basically introducing a theory
someone doesn't know his wittgenstein :(
>>8066807
Wittgenstein is overrated wankery. Skip to the good stuff like Carnap's 'Meaning and Necessity'.
>>8066877
meaning and necessity is a classic, but not sure why you would need to read only one of them
You won't truly understand him until you beat the shit out of some kids.
>>8063767
You should also make a point of reading the best readers of Wittgenstein, who I would say are:
Stanley Cavell
John McDowell
Cora Diamond
James Conant
Elizabeth Anscombe
Plus interesting readings of wittgenstein, or philosophers importantly shaped by their reading of wittgenstein:
Charles Taylor
Barry Stroud
Saul Kripke
Wilfrid Sellars
Peter Strawson
Michael Dummett
Crispin Wright
Richard Rorty
Robert Brandom
It might help to look at the Syllabi for two graduate seminars on Wittgenstein:
On the investigations/late wittgenstein:
http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/Late%20Wittgenstein%20Seminar%202015%20.pdf
And on the Tractatus:
http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/syllTractatus.pdf
>>8066925
Is this the only useful, informed, and informative reply in the history of /lit/?
>>8066925
thanks
>>8066925
Joachim Schulte and Jacques Bouveresse top all those by far.
They didnt just read W's texts academically and then made their personal philosophy out of what they understood, but actually followed W in every aspect of his life to see how his philosophy took shape, not as a simple idea system but as part of a life.
>>8070010
Fucking lol
>>8063767
>Or should I start with another book
Yes. How to read Wittgenstein by Ray Monks.
Then Blue & Brown books.
