What should I read before Wittgenstein in order to understand what the fuck he's talking about? Are there any good secondary sources to understand him?
>>7908208
1. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/regulars/ray-monk-wittgenstein
2. Ray Monk's The Duty of Genius
3. Ray Monk's How to Read Wittgenstein
4. Blue and Brown Books
5. Philosophical Investigations
He's writing at a time where formal logic is developed (the mathematical logicism project in Emgland/Austria in particular) and everything was ideosynchratic.
Working through a 200 page book about formal logic sure would be helpful.
desu I don't get how anybody who didn'y do mathematical logic or analytic philosophy can take anythung away from it (except then reading the last page and smaking sense of it for oneself and agreeig with it)
I'm speaking about the Tractatus here btw., the secind book is less formal but harder to get
What should I read before Heidegger to know what the fuck he's talking about?
>>7908233
1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/
2. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger-aesthetics/
3. https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berkeley
4. Mark Wrathal's How to Read Heidegger
5. Being and Time
>>7908240
Wrathall*
>>7908233
Windelband's History of Philosophy
>>7908208
Start with the greeks.
Frege, Russel, and then Wittgenstein.
Learn basic formal logic as well; there's good courses online if you so desire.
>>7908240
>no eastern phil
ahaha western imperialist pig
Why is this book never mentioned in these threads?
Stop with the monk, his account is as accurate as the portrait you take for the yearbook. McGuiness's bio is better as a biography even if not complete.
This one on the other hand puts him in context and shows that his intrusion into logic and all that was just coincidence. it happened to be there so he worked on it, the same way he later worked on architecture or as a professor. It all had a single underlying thrust, which never stopped until his last lines.
>>7908240
Kill yourself.
one cant understand this guy just by reading him. what he wrote was a tool for something. without that something what use can u have for the tool?
it's as if a crippled person invented the 1st prosthesis and then regular ppl found it. what use can they have for it? surely nothing like what the crippled guy had intended.
>>7909423
This.
Bonus: In between Tractatus and PI, read Carnap's Der Logische Aufbau der Welt.
if one is serious about this, the only thing is reading baker/hacker's 4 volumes and, if able, bouveresse's books about him.
if not, then whatever 100-page introduction will do cause you wont get shit anyway.
>>7910984
thats one of the best moments of 20th century philosophy
>>7908233
Just give up, if you ask this question you are not ready.
>>7908208
Integrate the entire western canon.
GEM Anscombe's Introduction to the Tractatus
Culture and Value - random notes on stuff, lot of musings on being Jewish, music, etc, lot of little things that are really funny in an autistic sort of way
On Certainty - written shortly before he died, pretty straightforward
>>7908233
Actual answer: Husserl. And beware of internet sources on Heidegger; they tend to be very shallow and imprecise about the language. Hubert Dreyfus' commentary is very good.
>>7910984
What did he mean by this?
Was it Wittgenstein himself he was opposed to or Wittgensteinians?
>>7908208
There is literally no point in reading any Western philosophers after Descartes apart from historical curiosity, but if you absolutely insist you will have to read basically the entire canon because he's laboring under 3 centuries of compiled delusions.
On the other hand you can read him fumble around in the Philosophical Investigations without any preparation at all, and it's even sort of enjoyable, if a bit depressing.
>>7912721
Basically, he was upset that analytic philosophy was making it hard for him to sell snake oil.
>>7908218
>ttp://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/regulars/ray-monk-wittgenstein
> Penrose’s theory is that a moment of consciousness is produced by a sub-protein in the brain called a tubulin. The theory is, on Penrose’s own admission, speculative, and it strikes many as being bizarrely implausible.
absolute bullshit this writer deserves a bullet for that degree of antiscientific slant. im not proscientism over here, but this article is galaxies away from objective. fucking tubulin producing consciousness uneducated phil hasnt even taken bio 1oh1. too busy reading about the inherent worthlessness of human wisdom and laughing at the STEM kids and their technical degrees thinking hes snuggling up against the fire of reason while writing complete assnine shite.
>>7908208
Jew language games, don't bother.
ps. the same applies to """"""catholic""""""" philosophy.
>>7913196
I'm not sure I understand your point - is it that Monk is dismissing Penrose's theory re: consciousness w/o actually understanding the science? Because desu even as a physicist myself Penrose is kind of wacko at this point
>>7908233
Mein Kampf
>>7910260
this fucking post lmao
>>7913706
>Can anyone recommend a starting point for formal logic?
Download the study guides here: http://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/
For an actual textbook, I recommend "Logic: The Laws of Truth" by Nicholas Smith.
>>7913706
thing is...i didnt use the image to make the post cute. it is because it cant be told otherwise, and dont get me wrong, theres no mystery about it.
howd u explain the prosthesis to the normal people? by cutting their leg? for language cant be used, that is one of the things in question, and if you give the object to them they cant use it like the cripple simply cause they are in a different situation.
if i were to say of each: they use it to play golf, that phrase would apply differently to each one: the cripple would use it like pic related, the regular person would probably use it in place of the golf club itself.
>>7913834
Are you drunk?
>>7912721
usually he is excused saying he meant bouveresse and the french wittgensteinians, not wittgenstein himself.
but you know, his words reek with the stench of an old man who knows his shit, and he knows what wittgenstein reached and how dangerous it can be for an established tradition, and he knew it even if by the sole echo it had in france.
he sounds like a shaman or a priest who feels threatened by some "crazy" guy who is revealing, not a new competing religion, but how religion and the mind works. someone who is not playing the game but revealing its implicit rules.
>>7913850
Deleuze is an unintelligible charlatan.
>>7913849
probably im permanently in the state a drunk man is temporarily
>>7913860
>don't understand him
>must be a charlatan
when will this meme end
>>7913797
Its true tho
>>7913874
Mario Bunge's crew
>>7913860
Deleuze actually is intelligible but you learn a lot more about Deleuze the man than you do about anything else by reading his philosophy. Since Deleuze is not a particularly interesting man the purpose of struggling through his texts is a bit unclear.
>>7914601
>you learn a lot more about Deleuze the man than you do about anything else
French postwar philosophy in a nutshell. The academia is just a social institution for socio/psychopaths to express themselves through books instead of social violence.
>>7908233
Look for intro books by professors from Freiburg that followed in his tradition, there are plenty at least in German, dunno about English translations..
I am really intrigued by the concept of language games. I feel like there is in every conversation this huge underbelly, subcommunication that is unspeakable, taboo to mention.. it makes me wonder how much of philosophy and speculative science is really just self help for smart people.
Language is such a two faced bitch. I want to figure it out. I want to destroy it, overcome it..
Has there ever been an instance where they take a philosopher and keep asking him "why" in an intelligent way?
Can you namedrop some thinkers that are fans of Witty's philosophical investigations?
A prerequisite to understanding the Tractatus is to have already read and understood the Tractatus
>>7908208
logicomix
>>7914949
If you knew anything about the """concept""" of language games, you'd know they're not intriguing at all, you mouth-breathing sodomite.
Don't pretend the obsolete ramblings of mid-20th century philosophers is interesting to you. And if you dare proceed with your """"""interests""""" there can only be one of two motivating reasons: (1) you're a historian and you don't belong in this thread (nobody loves you, leech) OR (2) you're legitimately stupid.
Let's think about (2) for a second. What do I mean by legitimately stupid? What's the difference between illegitimate stupidity and legitimate stupidity? The best way to think about this is within the context of language games. See in the language game of religion, "God" is a meaningful <i> object </i> - it denotes (in a Russellian and Kripkean sense) an object in this world, necessarily (surmounting the Meinongian objection to Parmenides' paradox). The individual who lacks a grasp of this vital and NECESSARY facet of the language game of religion is quite stupid within the context of this game. I would however, as an individual who doesn't personally partake in the language game of religion, argue that this individual is not LEGITIMATELY stupid. Indeed, the legitimately stupid person transcends the context of a given language game and is recognized by all those who can speak meaningfully of the world and its parts as an imbecile.
You are legitimately stupid. You're a sarcoma-ridden cretin and you disgust me.
>>7915205
>See in the language game of religion, "God" is a meaningful <i> object </i> - it denotes (in a Russellian and Kripkean sense) an object in this world
Not the guy you were replying to, but the concept of language games is incompatible with Russellian, or any other semantical, theory of meaning. The former is "meaning-is-use" (forget about denoting, think about inference instead) the latter is exactly what you go on to describe (proper names and definite descriptions denote actual, flesh-and-blood humans and objects).
Claiming that "God" is meaningful in the Russellian sense, while maintaining a Wittgensteinian framework, is incorrect at best and contradictory at worst, because it's indeterminate whether or not "God" is meaningful. But if you're employing a purely Wittgensteinian framework (whatever it looks like), you *could* use "God" in a "meaning is use"-kind of way.
But "meaning is use" has too many problems and it isn't all that useful for scientific inquiry; it needs more literal theory of meaning which something like modern formal semantics provides.
>>7915036
https://dotsub.com/view/e7fc5338-a0b6-4431-8518-8fc9c12443bf
>>7915320
Let me simplify what I wrote to make the philosophical points clearer, since the post combines jest with earnestness as it stands. I have not confused the Russellian theory of meaning with the Wittgensteinian. In fact, I am attempting to use a generalized version of Russell's theory of meaning to help better explain language games through example. I in no way equate the two. I will delineate my argument below.
Rigid designation, as defined by Kripke, goes something like this: across all possible worlds the name X refers to some object. And so the relationship between the name "X" and the object to which "X" refers is thus the same across all possible worlds. While Russell does not use possible world semantics, the idea of denotation, as you already know, is similar. The overarching (and possibly overgeneralized) point being made is that <i> Names refer (or denote) objects in the world </i> for both of these philosophers. This is to be distinguished from philosophers with peculiar ontologies, like Meinong.
Now back to the point being made in the line you've referenced. The analogy here is: to the theist, "God" (the name) refers to an object in the world, just as "Louis XVI" refers to an object in the world. To a non-theist who may not participate in this language game, "God" doesn't refer to anything in the world, and so is meaningless. It follows that even though there may be overlap between individual A and the individual B's vernacular, there may be words that are meaningful to one and not the other given the particular language game in which they're participating.
In summary: I am explaining language games through example. And the intuitive Russellian theory of meaning was the most apt way to accomplish this.
>>7915472
>Names refer (or denote) objects in the world </i> for both of these philosophers.
Yes, but I don't think they thought that *all* names refer. As far as I know, only Meinong believed in this: all denoting plus non-denoting (handled by free logic) names are meaningful.
>"God" (the name) refers to an object in the world
A proper name "p" denotes if and only if the object referred to exists. Does God (unless you're secretively stipulating an unorthodox interpretation of the term like "My sister", "Roger Federer", or "666") exist? Indeterminate; even for the theist. His beliefs about what "God" *might* refer to has no bearing on whether or not God does, in fact, exist. Whether "God" is meaningful is a matter best to be settled empirically or by a logico-mathematical theory that's in part informed by empirical states of affairs, if you have one.
The name "God" can certainly be meaningful as a character in a particular story, but claiming that such names, in spite of their semantic indeterminacy vis-a-vis reality, are meaningful outside the story, is dubious.
> And so the relationship between the name "X" and the object to which "X" refers is thus the same across all possible worlds
Really? It seems that I can conceive a possible world where David Hilbert of our world had the name "Hans" in some other possible world.
>>7915320
>"meaning is use"
this is my trigger. read the fucking book.
>>7916176
Who gives a fuck what your trigger is you idiot?
"Meaning is use" is an apt slogan, used by many philosophers in fact, to describe his later views.
>>7916191
Yeah, which is why it's taken so long for people to understand wtf he was ACTUALLY saying. Scour through the entirety of PI and try to find a single instance of the phrase "meaning is use". You won't find one.
>>7916205
D U D E, I realize that it doesn't figure in PI. (Where did you get the thought that I was quoting Wittgenstein in the first place?)
The slogan that's attributed to him gained popularity after his death (not sure who coined it though). If I remember correctly, it even figured in a pretty authoritative, up-to-date handbook of philosophy of language that I know but, at the moment, locate.
>>7916223
If it contained that bullshit misreading then its authority is undeserved
>>7916205
It's the most famous fucking passage in Philosophical Investigations (Section 43):
"For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word 'meaning' it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."
>>7916244
Are you fucking illiterate? You even gave the full sentence and everything.
>>7916249
The original post said that in a Wittgensteinian framework, "you *could* use "God" in a "meaning is use"-kind of way".
That is absolutely a correct and sensible statement to make.
Why? Because (excluding the defined list of exceptional cases), the Wittgenstein of PI believe that the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
>>7916277
>can be said
and
>excluding the defined list of exceptional cases
this is breathtaking.
>>7916279
>Yes, anon, I know that you're a more authoritative source than a bunch of theoretical linguistics and philosophy of language PhDs!
Linguists are terrible interpreters of Witt. Case in point: theoretical. Some random PhDs regurgitating the outdated mainstream interpretation are not more authoritative than contemporary Wittgensteinian philosophers.
At least you guys didn't say "a use-theory of meaning"
>>7913914
I know
>>7908208
All of Wittgenstein's writings are meant to be clear, precise and to the point. All that's needed is some basic logic and philosophy. Start with Tractatus and end with On Certainty, that's all you'll ever need to read.
>>7916319
>this is breathtaking
Then go grab your asthma inhaler, bitch boy.
>>7908208
>Wittgenstein
This guy is considered a fucking joke, but for some reason /lit/ licks his asshole clean. Why is this? Just to be edgy?
>>7917648
By whom?
