He takes people's honest self admissions of fallibility and crafts them into indictments, while providing no substantial argument as to how the defects could be more properly overcome. Hot ziggety, indeed.
I read The Golden Bough and I read his nonsensical rebuttal of it. Witty's primary indictment was a free admission that Frazer made at the opening of the book. Did you read these?
>''A does not equal A''
No thats true, that's what chaos theory basically says. Math can be 100% clean, but in realty math can at best get really close, to the point of functionality yes, but 99% does not equal 100% As long as the threshold for functionality is met, than the system maintains.
9 months ago
Anonymous
NTA
Can you give me short summary behinde this A not A?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Not him but...
9 months ago
Anonymous
I see interesting.
1. Why would sophiest say that identity of pound of sugar is equal to one in given moment?
2. This kinda solves away ship of thesus paradox no?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>1. Why would sophiest say that identity of pound of sugar is equal to one in given moment?
IIRC, it is because there are always inherent errors and changes. I remember there being an example of tons of grain, but it might have been from a secondary critique. In that example, rats get into the wheat, there is spoliation, the need for the wheat changes, and the market value changes. A ton of whet may be more or less valuable because of these changes. It seemed to me like I was supposed to imbue some inherent nature on the wheat. Some nebulous value. I remain unconvinced and find the entire argument disingenuous. >2. This kinda solves away ship of thesus paradox no?
Sort of. In the event that one finds oneself in such a paradox, one can just explain the circumstance. The audience can take of it what they will. Otherwise, you will find yourself explaining this Bronsteinian theorem anyways. There is no conservation of labor here.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Well thats why we leave exactness ans rigor im realm of ideas and take more pragmatic aproaches.
But non the less i love how this seqrch for rigor lead us to this moment altho i dont dare to say finall
Also tnqu anon
9 months ago
Anonymous
I still do not care for Bronstein, but you are OK.
9 months ago
Anonymous
No but Robert Sapolsky can give you a lecture on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo
You sound like you are just not accounting for errors, tolerancing, and change.
You sound like you are just not accounting for errors, tolerancing, and change.
The noise is the system. An out right errors shore, but at the most reductionist scale the numbers will never perfectly match, there are so many factors interacting in such subtle ways. Like the acoustics of a room with five people vs fifty vs five hundred, each playing of an orchestra will sound different. On a very reductionist scale, even the fabrics of the cloths worn and amount of body fat the audience has will effect the sound. Fictional yes, different yes, 99% does not equal 100%.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>99% does not equal 100%
Sure, but does 100% equal 100%?
9 months ago
Anonymous
There's no such thing as 100% outside of math was my point.
I call it Ontological taxonomic symbolic packaging. Phenomena are never observed as their discreet unique selves, but only as the symbol concept of itself.
A knife is just a knife, and on closer inspection there are different forms of knives.
Furth each model of knife has unique makes, and to the futurist individual object, the structural existence is unique.
Even two hypothetical identical twin knives do not share all properties, in regards to position in space-time, and internal conscious distinction of the observer.
That is to say I can see two knives that look the same, but are not for the fact that there are two of them. (In terms of the self, ones being in a given infinitesimal specific moment of time is not then the same self in any other moment in time.)
9 months ago
Anonymous
> Phenomena are never observed as their discreet unique selves, but only as the symbol concept of itself.
Completely backwards. Read an intro to bhuddism book or look up ‘emptiness’.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You sound like you are just not accounting for errors, tolerancing, and change.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>that's what chaos theory basically says. Math can be 100% clean, but in realty math can at best get really close, to the point of functionality yes, but 99% does not equal 100%
Chaos theory specifically says that there is no threshold for functionality in a chaotic system. That is, in a chaotic system, 99% might not be anywhere near 100%, nor would it necessarily be closer than 90% or further than 99.9%. In a chaotic system, approximate inputs do not yield approximate solutions. There is thus no "functional solution" at 99%, since there's no guarantee that this would be close to the actual solution.
>Philosophy cant go on with this abstract language, thus he helped develop analytic philosophy. P->Q type shit.
Black person he ended up destroying analytic philosophy. You're talking about early wittgenstein just after he met russels.
I was getting to that baby, it all came down to the fact that he wouldn't concede that an given room doesn't have a hippopotamus in it, because he wanted to define an negative hippopotamus as a possibility. Is a chair a negative hippopotamus? Is an given phenomena only is what it is, f(x), or is it also its not being. A chair is a chair because of what it does, but a chair is also a hippopotamus because its a negative hippopotamus, it does not being a hippo.
9 months ago
Anonymous
lmao what a load of shit
a chair is a chair, a hippo is a hippo
I hate pretentious bullshite like this
I don't get it, someone please help I'm a researcher and I feel like it's important for me to understand. >positivism - it doesn't matter what theory you craft to explain things, the only thing that matters is what happens in reality >wittgenstein is called a positivist because his first book states that language can never explain reality completely, it only shows (or rather is only capable of showing) the way things are
Is this right?
(YOU) did not understand witty
Neither did Russell
And the Vienna circle didn't either >6.54 >My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) >He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
Wittgenstein was not a logical positivist. However the later Wittgenstein was unironically worse than they ever were. Your definition of positivism is also very inaccurate. Carnap consistently claimed that in theory-making, you have a lot of freedom in choosing your base structure to impose on reality. "What happens in reality" looks very different to the positivists than to the traditional realists like Russell. No, what the positivists specifically rejected as stuff that is disconnected from this process of imposing structure on the observable reality of experience altogether. That's what they claimed counted as nonsense. But they weren't even as dismissive as people assume. Carnap basically says it comes down to feeling, and he sees feeling positively not negatively. In the end not only does he think the feeling thing can be done well (he loved Nietzsche for this reason), but he thinks our decisions in theory choice come down to this feeling. So ironically, the realm of the meaningless or nonsense is the most top-level unifying principle in Carnap's system. Wittgensteinians have totally misrepresented and character assassinated the logical positivists, they're practically evil for how they've colored people's perception of them. Once people started reading Carnap again lately they all fell in love with him, it's a recent trend, the revival in Carnap studies and even neo-Carnapianism, it's also coming even from people who aren't positivists (like the analytic metaphysical realists), and even from non-analytics (like Reza Negarestani and other continentals). Quine used to say the greatest analytic philosopher was explicitly NOT Wittgenstein, even if others thought so, but rather Carnap. He was right, people are finally starting to realize it, all it took was them actually getting over the prejudice that made them avoid him. Once they started reading the Aufbau, the Logical Syntax, etc and did so closely, and did some historical research into the context of Carnap's influences (Dilthey, neo-Kantianism, etc) and his view of feeling-of-life (lebensgefuhl), they've realized he is a hidden germ. Don't sleep on Carnap, my advice to all.
What's wrong with pacifism then? And God striked down two people for not participating in Peter's church communalism and lying about it. Well whatever, can never make sense of IQfy larper chuds.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Peter's church communalism >IQfy larper
9 months ago
Anonymous
Sir...
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yes. Have you even read the whole Bible, used Strong's Concordance, consulted commenaries, studied theologians and researchers and historians, or are you just some little larper baby
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Have you even read the whole Bible
No, I've only read the New Testament and a few books from the Old Testament. >Strong's Concordance
no >consulted commenaries
yes >studied theologians
no >or are you just some little larper baby
I've been Christian all my life sweatie, it has nothing to do with the recent wave.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Most lifelong Christians are lifelong larpers my brother not in Christ
9 months ago
Anonymous
Remember when Jesus said “these merchants in the temple are bad, but violence is never the answer!”
O wait
9 months ago
Anonymous
Jesus was a hippie dude, it's all about the vibe
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
The one time Jesus physically attacked anything at all in the New Testament, he attacked the property of other people against their permission (the tables of the money changers). Much the same as the only time God killed someone by miracle in the entire New Testament was Ananias and Sapphira for refusing to surrender their property honestly. Dwell on these facts a little.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I did and I realized nothing in the book indicates pacifism is a requirement. When Jesus told Peter to put his sword away, did he say “Peter, why did you cut that guys ear off? Dont you know you are supposed to be non-violent at all times??!!”
9 months ago
Anonymous
>be larper chud """"Christian"""" anon >greentext Carnap's socialism and pacifism >claim to like Jesus >Jesus supports pacifism >fight this saying "UMMM no but he flipped the money lender's tables >turns out the only exceptions to pacifism in the entire Gospels and Acts include one case where Jesus attacks M-C-M' circuit capitalists, and one where God strikes dead those who refuse to surrender their property to the communalist church authority for purpose of mandated redistribution
Idiot. Yes Jesus wasn't always a pacifist and I didn't deny it in the post you replied to. But the only two exceptions in the New Testament also happen to be of the same kind as the only times when you chuds forbid violence. If not for that, you should have already overthrown the bankers and the landlords.
9 months ago
Anonymous
English please
9 months ago
Anonymous
Googoogaga
9 months ago
Anonymous
The idea of Christian fathers beating up their kids and then telling them the story about Jesus going sicko more on merchants in the temple gives me a chuckle.
Style over substance maniac who set back the Brentano/Dilthey-inspired state of early analytic philosophy back a full 30 years after inventing OLP, and now his ghost and his cultist disciples continue a really bad big lie that character assassinates everything before him and after him. You're better off reading literally the entirety of the rest of analytic philosophy (except his Oxford copycats Ryle, Austin, and Strawson). Frick it you're even better off reading literally the entirety of CONTINENTAL philosophy. I don't care which of the two you love or hate if you dont like both. But he is absolutely WORSE than both. The early Wittgenstein was better but is still overrated. He really as a big ego madman who was lucky to be surrounded by one of the most benefactor-types in modern philosophy (Russell; today everyone is only out for themselves and would rather weed you out via their competitive spirit) and some of the humblest most modest geniuses (Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, etc), and also young talents who died early like Ramsey, without whose existence he would never have gotten anywhere, wouldn't have had any influence, would have died forgotten and not even regarded well by those who studied him because in every sense even Russell overcame him with his more advanced theory of the form of belief and quantified judgments in 1918 before the Tractatus even was published, and further overcome in a different direction by the Diltheyan hermeneutical idealism of the logical positivists especially Carnap, whose tradition was carried on both by neo-pragmatists like Goodman, Quine, Davidson, etc, and by neo-Russellian revivalists like Kripke, Armstrong, Lewis, etc. Wittgenstein was ltierally one of the worst figures in philosophy and somehow the Oxford dudes were even worse (Ryle > Austin > Strawson by the way).
>some of the humblest most modest geniuses (Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, etc)
If they were so smart, why didn't any of them realize that the statement "All statements are either analytic or empirical/synthetic" isn't analytically true or empirically provable? Logical positivism's reductionism fails in that its entire basis is a posteriori / inductivity.
See what I mean by character assassination? All the logical positivists explored their own beliefs' limitations, made modifications, and when they finally couldn't keep with it, abandoned the overal program. None of them stayed (traditionally) positivist by the end, unless they got murdered in Vienna before they could do so (I'm talking about Schlick their founder). In any case pointing out the problems with the verification principle isn't some magical takedown. Wittgenstein couldn't have been so smart if he didn't even realize that the basics of pragmatist undermined his use theory of meaning, or that his private language argument is easily undermined by a possible world semantics. See, nobody is a genius if they make mistakes by your logic.
>Wittgenstein added that if one were to add a negation sign before the whole of Sex and Character, one would have expressed an important truth.
I dont get it. What truth would that be?
This is a great example of how vague Wittgenstein is. He couldn't even answer your question I bet. The last line of the Tractatus ("where one one cannot speak one must remain silent") is the only important one unless you're interested in formal logic. Whenever he talks about "important truths" it's generally to say that such things can not be formulated explicitly via language. He's basically saying that he likes Weininger even if he can't logically defend him. Lots of people at Oxford were shocked when Wittgenstein would talk positively about him and I take it that's the context in which he said this.
Still it seems he doesnt agree with Weininger? Why else would he feel the need to add the negation sign?
>Another approach to finding traces of Weininger's influence in the later work of Wittgenstein, is to ask what is it, exactly, that is being negated when Wittgenstein says that Weininger's “greatness lies in that with which we disagree. It is his enormous mistake which is great. I.e., roughly speaking if you just add a “~” to the whole book it says an important truth.” Various answers have been suggested; here I want to mention only two, one stylistic, one methodological. Both identify a reaction by Wittgenstein against Weininger's mode of thinking. >First, one form taken by the old European anti-Semitism, is the idea that the israelite is not gifted for the factual and the real, for he is an oriental, and as such a fabulist who lives captured by pictures and dreams, and thinks in parables. Insofar as this identifies real stylistic traits, Weininger clearly is a gifted fabulist, who often thinks in similes, but he is a persistent rationalist in his metaphysical foundationalism, his dualistic principles, and his methodological dichotomizing. Much of Wittgenstein's later methodology deliberately rejects the theoretical “rationalism” of his own early book, and embraces the use of the Gleichnis (parable, or simile).24 In its traditional anti-Semitic form, the prejudice continues (and we should note that this, too, proceeds by dichotomizing the nordic from the oriental): “The nordic man, under his strong and sober sky, must oppose this unmeasuring people with logic. We must block their religious fables with a healthy positivism.” Thus, one way of reading the negation sign that Wittgenstein recommends putting in front of Sex and Character is as an indication that he is prepared to write philosophy in an “oriental” style, and thus to embrace the diversity that Weininger strove so hard to reject. Second, doing philosophy, for Weininger, essentially turns on the original dualism, and on the many instances of dichotomy which seem to him to arise inevitably from it. Those who see many differences between males and females, but no one essential difference, will not be convinced by Weininger's methodology, either in this case or in general. Wittgenstein sets a new pattern, he shows how to do philosophy differently. Rather than pursue the dualist game of either-or, with the quasi-absolutes that it thrives on, he tries to exorcise the bewitchment of such thinking by teaching us many differences, all of them grounded in the practice of various “language games”
>>True, a dualist like Weininger can reply: I do allow for infinite differences. For instance, there can be an infinity of differences among the actual people who fall between the ideal extremes of M and W. The Wittgensteinian, however, can reply: those differences are ranged along a continuum that only makes sense itself when it is established by the dualism of polar opposites. I, on the other hand, recognize differences that lie off any such continuum, ones that act as new paradigms for
clusters of differences, and ones that can share “family resemblances”, but are not categorizable by essential differences. There is, here, a new method in philosophy, one
which puts a negation sign in front of the old.
TLDR: Weininger did israeli philosophy in an Aryan way, Wittgenstein is trying to 'complete' Weininger by doing Aryan philosophy in a israeli way. Weininger really supplies the foundation for all of Wittgenstein's thoughts. He got his whole anthropocentric view from Weininger's aphorisms
Why do westerners onions out about Wittgenstein so much and give him credit for what early Buddhists put into word (and more comprehensively) 2500-2000 years ago?
You finally realized that he was a pseud?
Summarize him in 1 sentence
You don't get it
He takes people's honest self admissions of fallibility and crafts them into indictments, while providing no substantial argument as to how the defects could be more properly overcome. Hot ziggety, indeed.
>while providing no substantial argument as to how the defects could be more properly overcome.
You didn't read him.
I read The Golden Bough and I read his nonsensical rebuttal of it. Witty's primary indictment was a free admission that Frazer made at the opening of the book. Did you read these?
The world is everything that is the case
nice house
nice tractor
It's Tractortus Fertile Fieldicus
Antropocentric form of existance ._.
>People say X, but in there head X=1, and to another person X=2, really X=f(x).
Philosophy cant go on with this abstract language, thus he helped develop analytic philosophy. P->Q type shit.
Did he ever critique Bronstein's ''A does not equal A'' nonsense?
>''A does not equal A''
No thats true, that's what chaos theory basically says. Math can be 100% clean, but in realty math can at best get really close, to the point of functionality yes, but 99% does not equal 100% As long as the threshold for functionality is met, than the system maintains.
NTA
Can you give me short summary behinde this A not A?
Not him but...
I see interesting.
1. Why would sophiest say that identity of pound of sugar is equal to one in given moment?
2. This kinda solves away ship of thesus paradox no?
>1. Why would sophiest say that identity of pound of sugar is equal to one in given moment?
IIRC, it is because there are always inherent errors and changes. I remember there being an example of tons of grain, but it might have been from a secondary critique. In that example, rats get into the wheat, there is spoliation, the need for the wheat changes, and the market value changes. A ton of whet may be more or less valuable because of these changes. It seemed to me like I was supposed to imbue some inherent nature on the wheat. Some nebulous value. I remain unconvinced and find the entire argument disingenuous.
>2. This kinda solves away ship of thesus paradox no?
Sort of. In the event that one finds oneself in such a paradox, one can just explain the circumstance. The audience can take of it what they will. Otherwise, you will find yourself explaining this Bronsteinian theorem anyways. There is no conservation of labor here.
Well thats why we leave exactness ans rigor im realm of ideas and take more pragmatic aproaches.
But non the less i love how this seqrch for rigor lead us to this moment altho i dont dare to say finall
Also tnqu anon
I still do not care for Bronstein, but you are OK.
No but Robert Sapolsky can give you a lecture on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo
The noise is the system. An out right errors shore, but at the most reductionist scale the numbers will never perfectly match, there are so many factors interacting in such subtle ways. Like the acoustics of a room with five people vs fifty vs five hundred, each playing of an orchestra will sound different. On a very reductionist scale, even the fabrics of the cloths worn and amount of body fat the audience has will effect the sound. Fictional yes, different yes, 99% does not equal 100%.
>99% does not equal 100%
Sure, but does 100% equal 100%?
There's no such thing as 100% outside of math was my point.
I call it Ontological taxonomic symbolic packaging. Phenomena are never observed as their discreet unique selves, but only as the symbol concept of itself.
A knife is just a knife, and on closer inspection there are different forms of knives.
Furth each model of knife has unique makes, and to the futurist individual object, the structural existence is unique.
Even two hypothetical identical twin knives do not share all properties, in regards to position in space-time, and internal conscious distinction of the observer.
That is to say I can see two knives that look the same, but are not for the fact that there are two of them. (In terms of the self, ones being in a given infinitesimal specific moment of time is not then the same self in any other moment in time.)
> Phenomena are never observed as their discreet unique selves, but only as the symbol concept of itself.
Completely backwards. Read an intro to bhuddism book or look up ‘emptiness’.
You sound like you are just not accounting for errors, tolerancing, and change.
>that's what chaos theory basically says. Math can be 100% clean, but in realty math can at best get really close, to the point of functionality yes, but 99% does not equal 100%
Chaos theory specifically says that there is no threshold for functionality in a chaotic system. That is, in a chaotic system, 99% might not be anywhere near 100%, nor would it necessarily be closer than 90% or further than 99.9%. In a chaotic system, approximate inputs do not yield approximate solutions. There is thus no "functional solution" at 99%, since there's no guarantee that this would be close to the actual solution.
>Philosophy cant go on with this abstract language, thus he helped develop analytic philosophy. P->Q type shit.
Black person he ended up destroying analytic philosophy. You're talking about early wittgenstein just after he met russels.
I was getting to that baby, it all came down to the fact that he wouldn't concede that an given room doesn't have a hippopotamus in it, because he wanted to define an negative hippopotamus as a possibility. Is a chair a negative hippopotamus? Is an given phenomena only is what it is, f(x), or is it also its not being. A chair is a chair because of what it does, but a chair is also a hippopotamus because its a negative hippopotamus, it does not being a hippo.
lmao what a load of shit
a chair is a chair, a hippo is a hippo
I hate pretentious bullshite like this
So he destroyed all philosophy? Wtf does he expect us to do then?
gay and israeli
>I am a worm, but through God I become a man.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Language is gay
There is an infinite number of colors but only a finite number with names.
gay
opinion discarded
What cannot be talked about, it is better to remain silent.
What - for propriety's sake? Shut it down?
This is actually a good one sentence extrapolation of Wittgenstein. I dare say /thread worthy.
Itms literally an exact quote from wittgenstein
Yes sir, last line of tractatus if my memory serves?
I don't get it, someone please help I'm a researcher and I feel like it's important for me to understand.
>positivism - it doesn't matter what theory you craft to explain things, the only thing that matters is what happens in reality
>wittgenstein is called a positivist because his first book states that language can never explain reality completely, it only shows (or rather is only capable of showing) the way things are
Is this right?
(YOU) did not understand witty
Neither did Russell
And the Vienna circle didn't either
>6.54
>My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
>He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
Wittgenstein was not a logical positivist. However the later Wittgenstein was unironically worse than they ever were. Your definition of positivism is also very inaccurate. Carnap consistently claimed that in theory-making, you have a lot of freedom in choosing your base structure to impose on reality. "What happens in reality" looks very different to the positivists than to the traditional realists like Russell. No, what the positivists specifically rejected as stuff that is disconnected from this process of imposing structure on the observable reality of experience altogether. That's what they claimed counted as nonsense. But they weren't even as dismissive as people assume. Carnap basically says it comes down to feeling, and he sees feeling positively not negatively. In the end not only does he think the feeling thing can be done well (he loved Nietzsche for this reason), but he thinks our decisions in theory choice come down to this feeling. So ironically, the realm of the meaningless or nonsense is the most top-level unifying principle in Carnap's system. Wittgensteinians have totally misrepresented and character assassinated the logical positivists, they're practically evil for how they've colored people's perception of them. Once people started reading Carnap again lately they all fell in love with him, it's a recent trend, the revival in Carnap studies and even neo-Carnapianism, it's also coming even from people who aren't positivists (like the analytic metaphysical realists), and even from non-analytics (like Reza Negarestani and other continentals). Quine used to say the greatest analytic philosopher was explicitly NOT Wittgenstein, even if others thought so, but rather Carnap. He was right, people are finally starting to realize it, all it took was them actually getting over the prejudice that made them avoid him. Once they started reading the Aufbau, the Logical Syntax, etc and did so closely, and did some historical research into the context of Carnap's influences (Dilthey, neo-Kantianism, etc) and his view of feeling-of-life (lebensgefuhl), they've realized he is a hidden germ. Don't sleep on Carnap, my advice to all.
>Carnap, whose socialist and pacifist beliefs
>Carnap taught himself Esperanto
Oh my fauci
Do you like or hate Jesus
The former
What's wrong with pacifism then? And God striked down two people for not participating in Peter's church communalism and lying about it. Well whatever, can never make sense of IQfy larper chuds.
>Peter's church communalism
>IQfy larper
Sir...
Yes. Have you even read the whole Bible, used Strong's Concordance, consulted commenaries, studied theologians and researchers and historians, or are you just some little larper baby
>Have you even read the whole Bible
No, I've only read the New Testament and a few books from the Old Testament.
>Strong's Concordance
no
>consulted commenaries
yes
>studied theologians
no
>or are you just some little larper baby
I've been Christian all my life sweatie, it has nothing to do with the recent wave.
Most lifelong Christians are lifelong larpers my brother not in Christ
Remember when Jesus said “these merchants in the temple are bad, but violence is never the answer!”
O wait
Jesus was a hippie dude, it's all about the vibe
The one time Jesus physically attacked anything at all in the New Testament, he attacked the property of other people against their permission (the tables of the money changers). Much the same as the only time God killed someone by miracle in the entire New Testament was Ananias and Sapphira for refusing to surrender their property honestly. Dwell on these facts a little.
I did and I realized nothing in the book indicates pacifism is a requirement. When Jesus told Peter to put his sword away, did he say “Peter, why did you cut that guys ear off? Dont you know you are supposed to be non-violent at all times??!!”
>be larper chud """"Christian"""" anon
>greentext Carnap's socialism and pacifism
>claim to like Jesus
>Jesus supports pacifism
>fight this saying "UMMM no but he flipped the money lender's tables
>turns out the only exceptions to pacifism in the entire Gospels and Acts include one case where Jesus attacks M-C-M' circuit capitalists, and one where God strikes dead those who refuse to surrender their property to the communalist church authority for purpose of mandated redistribution
Idiot. Yes Jesus wasn't always a pacifist and I didn't deny it in the post you replied to. But the only two exceptions in the New Testament also happen to be of the same kind as the only times when you chuds forbid violence. If not for that, you should have already overthrown the bankers and the landlords.
English please
Googoogaga
The idea of Christian fathers beating up their kids and then telling them the story about Jesus going sicko more on merchants in the temple gives me a chuckle.
Style over substance maniac who set back the Brentano/Dilthey-inspired state of early analytic philosophy back a full 30 years after inventing OLP, and now his ghost and his cultist disciples continue a really bad big lie that character assassinates everything before him and after him. You're better off reading literally the entirety of the rest of analytic philosophy (except his Oxford copycats Ryle, Austin, and Strawson). Frick it you're even better off reading literally the entirety of CONTINENTAL philosophy. I don't care which of the two you love or hate if you dont like both. But he is absolutely WORSE than both. The early Wittgenstein was better but is still overrated. He really as a big ego madman who was lucky to be surrounded by one of the most benefactor-types in modern philosophy (Russell; today everyone is only out for themselves and would rather weed you out via their competitive spirit) and some of the humblest most modest geniuses (Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, etc), and also young talents who died early like Ramsey, without whose existence he would never have gotten anywhere, wouldn't have had any influence, would have died forgotten and not even regarded well by those who studied him because in every sense even Russell overcame him with his more advanced theory of the form of belief and quantified judgments in 1918 before the Tractatus even was published, and further overcome in a different direction by the Diltheyan hermeneutical idealism of the logical positivists especially Carnap, whose tradition was carried on both by neo-pragmatists like Goodman, Quine, Davidson, etc, and by neo-Russellian revivalists like Kripke, Armstrong, Lewis, etc. Wittgenstein was ltierally one of the worst figures in philosophy and somehow the Oxford dudes were even worse (Ryle > Austin > Strawson by the way).
>Style over substance
This man was anything but style anon.
He's adored by fans who don't care about substance. He also didn't care about substance himself. So he is style over substance in those senses.
>some of the humblest most modest geniuses (Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, etc)
If they were so smart, why didn't any of them realize that the statement "All statements are either analytic or empirical/synthetic" isn't analytically true or empirically provable? Logical positivism's reductionism fails in that its entire basis is a posteriori / inductivity.
See what I mean by character assassination? All the logical positivists explored their own beliefs' limitations, made modifications, and when they finally couldn't keep with it, abandoned the overal program. None of them stayed (traditionally) positivist by the end, unless they got murdered in Vienna before they could do so (I'm talking about Schlick their founder). In any case pointing out the problems with the verification principle isn't some magical takedown. Wittgenstein couldn't have been so smart if he didn't even realize that the basics of pragmatist undermined his use theory of meaning, or that his private language argument is easily undermined by a possible world semantics. See, nobody is a genius if they make mistakes by your logic.
>Wittgenstein added that if one were to add a negation sign before the whole of Sex and Character, one would have expressed an important truth.
I dont get it. What truth would that be?
This is a great example of how vague Wittgenstein is. He couldn't even answer your question I bet. The last line of the Tractatus ("where one one cannot speak one must remain silent") is the only important one unless you're interested in formal logic. Whenever he talks about "important truths" it's generally to say that such things can not be formulated explicitly via language. He's basically saying that he likes Weininger even if he can't logically defend him. Lots of people at Oxford were shocked when Wittgenstein would talk positively about him and I take it that's the context in which he said this.
Still it seems he doesnt agree with Weininger? Why else would he feel the need to add the negation sign?
>Another approach to finding traces of Weininger's influence in the later work of Wittgenstein, is to ask what is it, exactly, that is being negated when Wittgenstein says that Weininger's “greatness lies in that with which we disagree. It is his enormous mistake which is great. I.e., roughly speaking if you just add a “~” to the whole book it says an important truth.” Various answers have been suggested; here I want to mention only two, one stylistic, one methodological. Both identify a reaction by Wittgenstein against Weininger's mode of thinking.
>First, one form taken by the old European anti-Semitism, is the idea that the israelite is not gifted for the factual and the real, for he is an oriental, and as such a fabulist who lives captured by pictures and dreams, and thinks in parables. Insofar as this identifies real stylistic traits, Weininger clearly is a gifted fabulist, who often thinks in similes, but he is a persistent rationalist in his metaphysical foundationalism, his dualistic principles, and his methodological dichotomizing. Much of Wittgenstein's later methodology deliberately rejects the theoretical “rationalism” of his own early book, and embraces the use of the Gleichnis (parable, or simile).24 In its traditional anti-Semitic form, the prejudice continues (and we should note that this, too, proceeds by dichotomizing the nordic from the oriental): “The nordic man, under his strong and sober sky, must oppose this unmeasuring people with logic. We must block their religious fables with a healthy positivism.” Thus, one way of reading the negation sign that Wittgenstein recommends putting in front of Sex and Character is as an indication that he is prepared to write philosophy in an “oriental” style, and thus to embrace the diversity that Weininger strove so hard to reject. Second, doing philosophy, for Weininger, essentially turns on the original dualism, and on the many instances of dichotomy which seem to him to arise inevitably from it. Those who see many differences between males and females, but no one essential difference, will not be convinced by Weininger's methodology, either in this case or in general. Wittgenstein sets a new pattern, he shows how to do philosophy differently. Rather than pursue the dualist game of either-or, with the quasi-absolutes that it thrives on, he tries to exorcise the bewitchment of such thinking by teaching us many differences, all of them grounded in the practice of various “language games”
>>True, a dualist like Weininger can reply: I do allow for infinite differences. For instance, there can be an infinity of differences among the actual people who fall between the ideal extremes of M and W. The Wittgensteinian, however, can reply: those differences are ranged along a continuum that only makes sense itself when it is established by the dualism of polar opposites. I, on the other hand, recognize differences that lie off any such continuum, ones that act as new paradigms for
clusters of differences, and ones that can share “family resemblances”, but are not categorizable by essential differences. There is, here, a new method in philosophy, one
which puts a negation sign in front of the old.
TLDR: Weininger did israeli philosophy in an Aryan way, Wittgenstein is trying to 'complete' Weininger by doing Aryan philosophy in a israeli way. Weininger really supplies the foundation for all of Wittgenstein's thoughts. He got his whole anthropocentric view from Weininger's aphorisms
he trippin'
Why do westerners onions out about Wittgenstein so much and give him credit for what early Buddhists put into word (and more comprehensively) 2500-2000 years ago?
>Hillary Clinton. I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.
Qrd?