Don't start from greeks.
Greek philosophy is shit.
All you need is Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations(his other works are useless). He's correct in observing that philosophy is bullshit, arisws from misunderstanding language games, and the urge to philosophize is problematic and should be nipped in the bud. According to him, reading PI is supposed to be a therapeutic experience so that you stop philosophizing bullshit.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Why is this board hyper obsessed with philosophy/history? Go to
if you want to talk about that stuff.
His is filled with christcucks
Sounds like a good place but from what I’ve seen it’s mostly /misc/tards and Redditors fighting
Not really its filled with atheist scum
The problem with
is that it's full of people who were to stupid to read the source material but still want to discuss it. That is still prevalent on IQfy but to a lesser degree.
>people who were to stupid
>to
The problem with IQfy is that it's full of illiterate morons who think they're authorities on every subject because they read a book without understanding a word of it.
No
>nipped in the bud
>According to him, reading PI is supposed to be a therapeutic experience so that you stop philosophizing bullshit.
>philosophy is meaningless bullshit. b-but wait! you have to do it the RIGHT way, just read my book to learn how to do that
Wow... such is the power of the anglo intellectual!
Frogposter….
Wittgenstein is prob the only philosophy book you’ve read right? Wittgenstein definitely did not resolve the whole of phillosophy.
if you knew how broad philosophy as a subject was you would have understood this.
Anyone who believes this dumbass shit deserves the ignorance they get as penalty.
philosophy is just a hamster wheel for the autistic. let them have their fun.
I have read the complete works of Wittgenstein and have sagaciously come to the conclusion that Wittgenstein utterly fails at "solving" philosophy in any meaningful way.
No, I will not explain how. Just take my word for it. If you read Wittgenstein, his failures will become clear as day
>If I can't think up how to formalize something it is a pseudo problem and you are a fly in a fly bottle for trying to think about it.
I think PI says something interesting about the way epistemic justifications hang together, but Quine said this sort of thing much more clearly re holism and Hegel was already getting at the problems in positivism and foundationalism far earlier.
The philosophy of language stuff is vague. PI is simply obscurantist. If you reduce it to the least controversial take, Wittgenstein is just pointing out that language is a social practice. E.g., Arab babies raised in France call things by French words. Only people who speak the same language understand each other. Language evolves over time through social forces.
The thing is, this is obvious and no one ever denied it. But when Wittgensteinians want to make this non trivial they have to try to explain how language is nothing but social practice and games all the way down. The thing is, it clearly isn't. Kirpke has to say ridiculous things about private rule following because of this, things even other Witt fans call out.
What causes languages' rules to be what they are? Why do we have different names for different species? Well, this obviously goes back to nature. If there was no difference between cows and tigers we wouldn't have different names for them. Referring to rules and then having no explanation of how rules form just seems sort of trivial to me. No shit language is social. What philosophy of language was always interested is how the rules work to fix meaning.
Now, Wittgenstein is good ammunition against verificationalism and Russell's theory of language, but these are obviously wrong. Unfortunately, a lot of Witt fans seem to think all philosophy aside from Witt is positivism, and that defeating positivism is defeating all prior philosophy.
>Why do we have different names for different species?
because we want to differentiate them and we find that making those distinctions is useful.
And why are those distinctions useful? Obviously because there are different species. So it isn't "social practices all the way down." Human beings don't fail to distinguish between snow and ice until someone makes an arbitrary rule of how to refer to them.
The easy answer to your question is so people know what the frick we are talking about.
I think he's just mad the lion wouldn't answer his calls
I’m more interested in thinking about different beliefs and systems. I’ve never given a frick about philosophy of language.
>He's correct in observing that philosophy is bullshit
Including his philosophy?
Any person who says “all you need to understand X subject is this book” is a midwit. Books are there to refine your own view, not just copy the author’s one. I pick up bits and pieces from a plethora of works. Be it either the Greeks, the Rationalists, the Idealists, or Wittgenstein. Don’t take anything as Gospel, but create your own system and critically compare it to these great works. There’s nothing intellectual about regurgitating someone else’s views.
Liberal bullshit
Which book do you allow to do your thinking for you? Hopefully you at least picked a good one.
>forming your own thoughts
>liberal bullshit
what
chuds need Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate as father substitutes
I just find this confusing. All of the authors with books and ideas to their name formed them through discussion with books and people. Why would applying this line of thought yourself be "liberal bullshit"?
Because anything that doesn't align with the chud tiktok tradcath hyperborea trends is liberal bullshit. Anyone who mentions politics like this is low IQ cattle. Ignore him.
Who the hell thinks this way?
Atheists and leftists who have adopted Marx and Hitchens as their daddies a decade earlier and are now projecting this choice onto everyone else.
Did you actually read PI frog?
Platonism is pure metaphysical garbage, it's proto-Christianity.
Not at all
moronation
christianity stole from platonism
the only good parts of christianity are platonic aspects, the hebrew factor is the crap factor
OP was filtered.
Not so fast.
>ignore all these foundational people who essentially invented modern philosophy over 2000 years before modern times
>read this stupid moronic Black folk blog-posts he shat out from some poverty-stricken Austrian press that would publish literally anything to turn a dime
Yea, no.
I know this is probably a troll but why do you think people read philosophy in the first place
In my opinion the 2 greatest ideas in philosophy are the nicomachean ethics and eudaimonia.