based or cringe? and more importantly, right or wrong?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
based or cringe? and more importantly, right or wrong?
based or cringe? and more importantly, right or wrong?
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Based (if we can be sure of what we are to mean by saying 'based'). But right/wrong? What do you think, Anon?
checked and
>(if we can be sure of what we are to mean by saying 'based')
based!
he seems right to me, at least in destroying analytic philosophy
Very very clever guy. My favorite of his:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument
lmao brainlet picked his worst shit. private language argument and meaning is use theory = trash
on certainty is a good book though
Theorycel sneed
You’re a dumb fricking loser. Also wrong
stop reading books dumbfrick, if you couldnt poke holes to his meaning is use crap you dont deserve to set your eyes on printed paper (how about: we work together, yet we privately refer to a thing as a different polytheistic god with different connotations, it would be just circular then to shoehorn this to meaning is use, but such is the moronation wittgenstein's thought was steeped in)
>he got filtered by the private language argument
>resorts to sperging out about irrelevant nonsense
Ngmi my condolences
so, no response as expected, just more drooling over wittgensteins magnificent intj stare that is definitely, definitely a signal of a great filter
>why aren’t you responding to my verbal flatulence about some unrelated thing?
Sad
literally no comprehension of any issue unless within presence of a Confirmed Great INTJ Genius, thats cool that even mentally handicapped people found a way to look smart through wittgensteins penetrating intj stare
Nobody knows why you’re sperging out and shitting up the post. Nobody cares about your moronic grievances with some imaginary person in your hollowed out mind.
I sincerely hope this is how you are in real life. This way I can rest assured you get what your feeble existence deserves.
i literally refuted the entire argument lmao but sure keep telling yourself non-comprehending reading is making a positive difference in your life
You’re arguing with someone who doesn’t exist. You’ve refuted no claim posted on this board. You’re having a conversation with your imaginary enemies. Nobody knows what you’re talking about. Lie down take an advil and try to leave this mindstate.
He was arguing against this guy:
Here is his argument from what I can tell:
>(how about: we work together, yet we privately refer to a thing as a different polytheistic god with different connotations, it would be just circular then to shoehorn this to meaning is use, but such is the moronation wittgenstein's thought was steeped in)
>le wittgenstein daddy cant be wrong le wittgenstein visionary he saw the universal human experience in his books!!! i'll read his every notebook and overinterpret it because le epic intj stare picture makes it all that much better
Cringe and more wrong then right, and his cult fans don't help either.
Still worth reading though.
cringe and wrong. he's niezsche tier but the analytic version
secondary school tier take
>omg le i end philosophy philosopher mysticians ooooooooh
stop reading books midwit
His fans are equally cringe
Based and accurate. He’s Nietzsche tier but like the analytic version.
He was mostly right. The world consists largely of facts. But he doesn't acknowledge feelpinions so continentals hate him
You read that line so wrong. LMAO. You can't be serious! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHa!!!
He's exactly halfway between both extremes
His one-armed brother was far more talented than him.
What about his long-lived mistress?
Can someone explain to me what a language game is? I've read the Wikipedia article and don't really get it. Do I need to actually read Wittgenstein?
a language game is just communication as something that depends on its context. Same words/phrases can mean different things in different contexts.
it is meant to imply that language is not some abstract conception on a higher plane, but simply a part of the way we act in certain places. We grunt when struggling to lift something. We may also exclaim “help”. These are actions - not some abstract concept of “speech”.
Language as a whole is then conceived as merely a collection of such contexts and how we act within them. There’s no real sense in dictionaries. Words aren’t within one category of “words”, just like raising you hand to pick a fruit isn’t the same category as raising it to strike someone.
This is the basic jist. Of course it’s not particularly mindblowing and I’m sure I could have done better.
Thanks for the explanation. I don't fully get the motivation for outlining the idea. Is he saying we shouldn't try to define words? I suspect that I need to be familiar with the philosophical linguistics of the time, which he may have been responding to.
Yeah there’s something he’s building up to. It has to do with the claim that language corresponds to the world it describes. That therefore it is possible to improve that correspondence by putting stricter demands on language. He didn’t like that style of thinking