Good enough for me

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    kierkegaard chads keep winning

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Kierkegaard diaries are so fun compared to his serious books

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein ends the Nietzschegay

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein was a chud

    >When, in the ’twenties, Russell wanted to establish, or join, a ‘World Organization for Peace and Freedom’ or something similar, Wittgenstein rebuked him so severely, that Russell said to him: ‘Well, I suppose you would rather establish a World Organization for War and Slavery’, to which Wittgenstein passionately assented: ‘Yes, rather that, rather that!’48

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think Wittgenstein was exactly right to say that but I absolutely sympathise with him in rebuking Russell for that. Classic liberal egotism from Russell.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hot ziggety

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I will now name my future company to World Organization for War and Slavery

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t. smarmy sentimental anglo golem btfo'd by autistic teuton gigachad

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    History is chock-full of based autists, but only God can renew the world.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jeepers, fellas!

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenbros and Kierkechaads stay winning frfr no cap

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsisters, can we ever come back from this?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nietzsisters, can we ever come back from this?
      I don't think so.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anons, please explain to me this. I have been going to a philosophy discussion group and the guy that runs it is a Wittgenstein Chad. But I don't understand. Wittgenstein attempted to systemitise language but what were his own conclusions about ethics or phenomenology or what have you? All I got from our module on him was a grand project to better understand the language of philosophy but to what end?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ayer lmao

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Erm wut?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ayer wrote Language, Truth, Logic. Ultimately that is a synthesis or summary of Witty, Heidegger, Hegel. Rather than a more traditional distinction of ontology, epistemology, ethics, programme

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And you would like me to read this to answer my question?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what Wittgenstein's conclusions about those things were. I guess that is the game of being able to identify parts of the Tractatus. I don't want to comment on your group because it's your group.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but he viewed most philosophical questions as pseudo-questions, so it wouldn't be possible to settle them.

            So he simply nullified all philosophy by showing them all for the frauds they were? Sounds like diogenes of the 20th century.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, not precisely. He also thought most previous philosophers were honourable and their quest for truth noble, only they had been entangled by language in their search. The task of Wittgenstein's philosophy is "to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle".

            The conclusions of the Tractatus (Wittgenstein I: Origins) are that most of philosophy, the most important parts, including the Tracatus are fundamentally nonsense from a philosophical point of view, based on his theory of language, and should be scrapped, and all the laid off philosophers should either do physics or mysticism. So he quit philosophy, because he solved it.

            Wittgenstein II comes back and to a significant degree rejects the Tractatus, though his focus is still on language and analytics. So philosophy is not over, but everyone but Wittgenstein is wrong and stupid, and probably morally depraved, apparently.

            I read him like a weird poem at this point, he's a vibe frfr no cap.

            is being irreverent, it's not inaccurate but it's not a summary of his position.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I see. So it's more about straightening out the philosophy world and getting people to come to a full understanding of an argument being made?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am being irreverent and I'm also only slightly familiar with the Nü Wittgenstein work, which I'm not sure ever resolves into a single view. The Tractatus is very obscure in parts but it's clearly of a piece.

            I'm not being irreverent about everyone but Wittgenstein being wrong and stupid, he was strident about his views and the stories of him going off on famous philosophers, his own students, and rural Austrian schoolchildren are numerous and well-attested. I like TLP a lot and his aphorisms are wonderful but he was a crazy person, this is worth keeping in mind.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            basically imagine flipping the table over so fricking violently that jest tends to pool in one particular spot, and as a consequences people tried to redo it but the sound and the fury was a mistake

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The conclusions of the Tractatus (Wittgenstein I: Origins) are that most of philosophy, the most important parts, including the Tracatus are fundamentally nonsense from a philosophical point of view, based on his theory of language, and should be scrapped, and all the laid off philosophers should either do physics or mysticism. So he quit philosophy, because he solved it.

      Wittgenstein II comes back and to a significant degree rejects the Tractatus, though his focus is still on language and analytics. So philosophy is not over, but everyone but Wittgenstein is wrong and stupid, and probably morally depraved, apparently.

      I read him like a weird poem at this point, he's a vibe frfr no cap.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        But how did he think he had solve dphilosophy if he declared all philosophers posers? That still doesn't settle the questions themselves?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          NTA but he viewed most philosophical questions as pseudo-questions, so it wouldn't be possible to settle them.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        nicely put and not irreverent, at least in my opinion.

        >I read him like a weird poem at this point, he's a vibe frfr no cap.
        Am I the only one reading 'fr fr' like 'furrrrrrrrrfurrrrrrrrr' with a hard 'R'?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        wow, this is a really fricking bad reading of the tractatus.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s hard to understand tbh you have to read Frege and Russell (math only) and you have to read Kierkegaard and then you can read witty hopefully with the correct mindset.

      But I will try for you. You can’t say anything about morality or ethics but it can be shown.

      I think Kierkegaard is essential to grasp thsi

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thank you for the help anon. Very grateful.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Notice how Wittgenstein threads fizzle out so badly because of how inaccessible he is to the layman. Nor does he have much on religion or politics. IQfy will never get into him.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Derrida > Wittgenstein 2.0 > Wittgenstein 1.0

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone read this? I picked it up from Savers a couple years ago. It looks like an easier intro to him than going straight into the Tractatus.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Notebooks 1914
      Tractatus
      Brown and blue
      Philosophical investigations

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for the reading guide, but could you give me a comment on what you got out of the Brown and Blue?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The notebooks and brown and blue are very very difficult as they weren’t intended to be published.
          Notebooks is quite literally dated thought from his journal in chronological order and if astute you’ll notice ideas return in a coherent way in Tractatus.

          notebooks does have the notes Witty sent to Russell for a talk at the end, whcih we’re intended for an audience, Moore and Russell failed to understand him so I think it’s hard to necessarily recommend the notebooks and brown and blue to anyone who isn’t well versed in witty and his thoughts.

          That said a lot of the ideas of brown and blue are in philosophical investigations but in a more appropriate context for a reader to grasp his ideas.

          But where notebooks and Brown and blue are useful is a deeper dive into the thought process and help ‘getting’ Wittgenstein.

          Blue and brown aren’t quite the system but offer different arguments they helped form philosophical investigations

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is there anything worthwhile to be gained from Wittgenstein? The more people talk about him, it seems like there isn't much unless you're a diehard analytic. No one relevant builds on his system the way they did with, say, Hegel or Marx

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well he was considered a genius by very smart people. So there’s atleast some thing interesting to find in the sense he was extremely gifted.

            His ‘system’ so speak was influential until World War II when the Nazis stamped it out and the adherents spread out over the democratic world from New Zealand to the us and Britain and Israel.

            I think too you could in some ways look to Karl popper and pin him down as a Wittgenstein follower (though he wouldn’t say so). So in many ways the dude I ducking love science and Richard Dawkins style atheism that currently rots in the popular culture can be traced to a misunderstanding or evolution of witty.

            Witty was also a ‘Fan’ of the USSR in a very weird way, in that he liked the idea of everyone working and building a society around labour. But it should be noted Lenin and the othodox Marxists didn’t like him. It should also be noted that the Marxists in Vienna seems to think they could build off of him to make a Marxist style ideology.

            Witty also was friendly with some Marxists in Cambridge. This has led to some Marxists claiming him as one of their own, which is likely very very wrong of them to do, as he liked the work park of Marxism but the ideology not so much. He also didn’t like the gentleman trying to use his ideas to achieve some political ends.

            In my view Wittgenstein is nearly unassailable in his work. I just can’t see a way to defeat it. But I’m considering that it’s philosophy and it’s not a fashion piece you can put on or off.

            It’s simply there and it’s ironclad in its rigor.
            So in the sense of finding a satisfying resolution to philosophy it’s essential.

            But if you are reading more for the understanding of historical impact or development I think Wittgenstein was passed over due to world events not necessarily because it was bad wrong or irrelevant.

            Popper became a massive figure and he’s sort of an opponent of Wittgenstein’s view. Witty died. Popper lived and went to teach and wrote books for another 5 decades. He got the last word.

            I’d just say most people don’t understand Wittgenstein and simply want to wear him like a badge.and that’s true for most of his ‘followers’

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh wow, that's an extremely detailed response. Thank you, I appreciate it.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based will read his shit now and not just the Wikipedia entries.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      language: standard
      ???: why would anyone care to be completely honest at one specific time?
      logic: batlle

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Reading wikipedia anyday.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    kirky and witty, name a more iconic duo

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does he have the sad & lost stare? Most philosophers had that decisive focused stare.
    Do you think philosophy didn't give him the answers he sought?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *