Does anyone want to discuss Wittgenstein on a semi, in-depth level. Meaning anything but your general 'gist of it' you got from reading on wikipedia for 15 min.
I'm in the middle of working my way through PI and I've looked at Tractatus in a school setting.
Is there anyone on here who thinks he has a grasp on Wittgenstein, or at the very least someone who won't take extreme pleasure in pretending he does when he actually doesn't?
>>877369
I (OP) am going for a run, optimally someone should have posted their conclusions on Wittgenstein, with support from original text excerpts, when I'm back. But it's not an optimal world so don't let that deter you from posting anything you think is of value.
Wittgenstein thinks like a child. For true knowledge and wisdom you need to study the Qu'ran
>>877953
>extreme pleasure
Remember! Only YOU can prevent shitpost inflation!
Yeah but I mean i just don't really know what to post in response to this. What do you have any specific questions OP?
>>877369
>le ebin logic man
Fuck off
>>878177
that's frege or russel you dummy
>>878139
Sure.
What does the later Wittgenstein think the relationship is between language and the external world?
In Tractatus, if I remember correctly, he wants to say that the world is made up of 'facts', which have some connection to language.
However in PI he seems very careful as to not suggest that the various uses language include description of the external world. Referring always to the 'use' of the particular language.
Would it be a correct to say that Wittgenstein did not believe that language could assign 'truth-values' at all?
Of course here we will refrain from applying analysis to 'truth-values' itself and so on.
>>877964
> I can't refute his point, better call him a shitposter
>>878292
>what did le ebin childbeating autism man mean by this
No one cares, stop talking about this fucking faggot
>>879390
> a high level of discourse is expected.
> please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
>>877369
>discussing PI
Fuck, I remember a study group on /lit/ a few years ago. I bailed out after the second or third meetings, because the progress seems so slow, when I could just read summaries and commentaries.
>>879433
DUDE LANGUAGE DUDE WORDS WHAT DO THEY MEAN DUDE P NOT P DUDE
>>877369
Wittgenstein is what happens when analyticals discover that Russell's information problems exist in the core tool of consciousness, and independently rediscover Hegel's discourse.
Everyone is continental now.
p.s.: StevenPinker.jpg
wittgenstein is a tool. u dont understand a tool u use it and there is not a more right use than other. there are just useful uses of it, each in its own context.
>>879463
>memes sentences will pass off as an educated opinion on the subject
'no'
>"Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must remain silent."
And Analytics deride Continentals for being obscurantist with language.
>>879606
DUDE LIKE JUST THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK BAM PHILOSOPHY SOLVED LMAO
>>879620
But it is tautologically true.
>>879648
Why does that matter?
Why couldn't he say "If you can't speak, it means you don't produce sounds"?
He's literally trying to sound more profound than he really is, which is what analytics constantly hate on continentals for.
>>879660
Making sound isn't the nature of speech.
>>878292
If I may interject -
I partially agree that Wittgenstein didn't believe that language could assign truth values, but this must be seen in context of 'truth functions' and how they are used in language games
>>879620
This is what I meant when I said a 15 min wikipedia binge but it's more like 5 min.
>>879782
Well, how are they used in language games? It seems like they aren't used at all to me. Language is purely instrumental. What would be an example of a truth function used in language?
If I say: The sun is up, therefore it is morning.
Wittgenstein would not say that I am making a logical conclusion or an attempt at one would he? He would reduce it to the utility of the statement, I want someone to get out of bed.
Yet obviously I am know trying to assign a truth value to the statement 'language is only instrumental', so it seems obvious that it is not. .
