Philosophy was a mistake
-L. Wittgenstein
but a necessary and inevitable one.
its like saying that perspective vision, the way we see the world due to the human eyes anatomy, is false. it is indeed not the "objective" state of things, yet it is the way we see them and, despite not being "true" (note the irrelevance of the question), it is practical. or have you ever seen a child failing to walk just cause he sees in perspective?
>>7815105
"Philosophy too focused on concepts and not logic was a mistake"
ftfy
Haha I like cocks
-L. Wittgenstein
I was a mistake
-L. Wittgenstein
I wrote my MA thesis on Witty. It was not a mistake.
>>7815188
>I wrote my MA thesis on Witty
definitely a mistake
>>7815163
>proceeds to use concepts to lead people to logical conclusions
>[flybottle intensifies]
>>7815348
define "concept"
checkmate atheists
I like hitting children in the head.
-L. Wittgenstein.
Fuck y'all philosophizing niggas
-L. Wittgenstein
>>7815105
>Implying free will.
Your move.
1 ayy lmao
1.1 we waz kangz and shieet
1.11 the white niggas be killin all de black niggas
1.12 deez black niggas be the real Israelites
1.13 Khazar jews are not real jews
1.2 Kanye is a genousssssss
1.21 Making music realllllll nigga like Jesus the first black Jew
2 feel the Bern
2.01 deez white girls be just BBC slaves
2.011 teh liittle wite boipucci is made for dis balck cock
2.012 we just tax de rich wite niggas and den give us duh programmes and den kill whitey
2.0121 If we tried, for example, to express what is expressed by “(x):fx” by putting an index before fx, like: “Gen. fx”, it would not do, we should not know what was generalized. If we tried to show it by an index g, like: “f(xg)” it would not do—we should not know the scope of the generalization. If we were to try it by introducing a mark in the argument places, like “(G;G) : F(G;G)”, it would not do—we could not determine the identity of the variables, etc. All these ways of symbolizing are inadequate because they have not the necessary mathematical multiplicity.
t. mug nigga widdy
L. Wittgenstein was a mistake
-Philosophy
>>7815188
Alex?
○
- Parmenides
>>7816507
i can't believe he actually wrote this
>>7816507
SHEEEEEEIT
>>7815105
I do not know if this thread is going serious, I mean, by checking some of the comments. This quote is interesting, in my opinion.
I may have to think more about it, but in a quickly look, he's true. Philosophy has made us think we had the "truth". We have doubt (we keep doing it) even if we exist or not. I mean, you may "believe" or not in that, but probably if we hadn't thought that far we wouldn't had got this life-style, like being depressed everytime, asking ourselves the meaning of life, and that moral stuff.
But I do not think at all it was a mistake. Probably philosophy is inherent to human, and human is to philosophy. We're rational animals, aren't we?
>>7816507
Can someone give me a non-meme version of this? I have a 50 character dissertation due in four years on Witty and I just can't be asked to figure him out.
>>7816554
Nope
>>7815427
define "define"
checkmate logical positivists
'If anyone wishes to study Philosophy, he does not as yet know what Philosophy is, else he would not need to study it.'
>>7816701
whatever my definition of "define" is, I disagree with your definition of it
checkmate everyone except mathematicians
did u guys know wittgenstein made doorknobs
I proclaim all philosophy to simply be misuse of language, because I can't deal with the fact that some questions are unanswerable.
t. wiggerstain
>>7817515
I'm not being rude, but you're actually missing a point here. You're missing the while premise of 'whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'. If there are problems which are unanswerable, you shouldn't be talking about them, therefore all existing philisophical problems are problems caused by the misuse of languagekek idfk
>>7815105
He would have hit it.
>>7817530
Nah, W only frot with the servile and the obsequious.
>>7817530
Can't hustle the Russell.
