I haven't read Wittgenstein yet, but my thought is that everything we can conceive is created by our minds, so all philosophy can ever explore is the world that the collective human mind created. That's why language is the limit of what we can do with philosophy.
Nothing can explain itself. That's the bottom line. All studies (philosophy, science, math) are just studies of the constructs of human mind. We can never have an equivocal understanding of Truth. We can only analogize to Truth with our experience.
So is that it then? Did I find the end point of philosophy? What comes next?
motherfricker just GO OUT and READ wittgenstein before you EVEN BEGIN to formulate an opinion GOOD GOD this board is shit
Why? I already understand the gist of it. I'll get around to it but I'm already moving past him.
You absolute dumbfrick, you don't read Wittgenstein if you already know Wittgenstein. To quote the very first sentence of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:
>This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it
Anon already thought the thoughts expressed in it, why read it now? Some real room temperature IQ takes in here.
>why read
Indeed
Language is the beginning of history but no way it’s the end of philosophy.
I haven't read Wittgenstein but if you want some fun, go and try telling physicists that physics is ultimately just the study of the human mind. I am a doctor in quantum physics and they get really mad when I say that
Oh that is a fun hobby of mine. When you tell them that the most we can say about matter is that it represents pure potentiality but that we can say nothing further, they lose their minds.
Materialism is a mental illness
The next funniest thing that makes them mad is to tell them that a theory is useless if you can't adequately communicate it to others, and therefore the correct theory requires consensus as well as producing the right results, and in that sense physics is actually a social science
Yeah you're absolutely right OP, no need to read anything at all much less Wittgenstein. You cracked the code of the universe wide open. It beats you making an announcement thread and then 2 or 3 days later coming back to tell us you were filtered by Wittgenstein I suppose.
Herder said what Witty said but much better. and yes, I've read Herder.
Are you OP? You could have made a Herder thread if so.
My contribution was more than adequate for a response to the OP. Are we turning this into a Wittgenstein thread?
You didn't contribute anything. Feel free to start some actual discussion.
OP, in true OP homosexualry and befitting the long line of homosexualous OPs before OP, made a thread saying they had come to the end of philosophy and there was no need to read someone since it's all just made up in the mind anyhow. My response was appropriate, if there is no pertinent conversation in the thread starter and OP is just out and about looking to make trolly statements then I provided and adequate response. If you feel this is so unbecoming a response on this dignified and prestigious anonymous Mongolian basket weaving forum you are more than welcome to get a worthy conversation going. Otherwise I will gladly just respond to OP and you can mind your own business. Here is a complimentary cope moar if you don't have anything else to say.
Well can you provide some substantive discussion here or no?
>everything is created by our minds
Congratulations OP. You discovered Buddhism. Which is unironically the true religion.
OP here. Buddhism can't account for our own existence though. You must go beyond the Eastern religions and you discover that Christianity is true. The world we inhabit is constructed by our minds, but there is a greater mind sustaining us and the world - God.
What you’re describing is how God is described in Hinduism. Not Christianity. Anyway, Buddhism does explain our world. Look up Dependent Origination. If you want to be a Christian, well fine, I guess. But everything you’re describing about how you view reality are either fundamental Buddhist or Hindu teachings, as there is a lot of overlap between the two. I respect if you’re Christian, but nothing you’re saying are Christian teachings. The idea that our mind is creating reality is specifically Buddhist.
Our "world" is matter. What is matter? It seems to be mental potentiality. That's really the best we can say.
Out of unformed matter (mental potentiality) our minds conceive "things" -objects and spacetime framework itself. But that doesn't mean that we imagine ourselves, our feelings, or each other. Living creatures still exist. You and I exist as independent "things" and we interact in a shared reality. Us, and our shared reality, is still created and sustained by a larger mind - God. Our feelings are what is real - love, despair, grief, etc.
There is nothing un-Christian about this view. I admit that it goes way further than most Christian thought, but it doesn't go against the Christian concept of God. It actually supports it. It fits with Aquinas and hylomorphism, for instance (form and substance are one and the same).
I agree that much is shared with the Eastern religions/philosophies.
What you’re describing sounds most similar to Buddha-Nature, OP. You should probably read the Lotus Sutra and Diamond Sutra because they talk about this stuff. You’re sort of reverse engineering Buddhism but looking at it from an Abrahamic perspective.
https://www.noemamag.com/the-conscious-universe/
>But over the course of the 20th century, panpsychism came to be seen as absurd and incompatible in mainstream Western science and philosophy, just a reassuring delusion for New Age daydreamers. Karl Popper, one of the most influential philosophers of recent times, described it as “trivial” and “grossly misleading.” Another heavyweight, Ludwig Wittgenstein, waved away the theory: “Such image-mongery is of no interest to us.”
Why does Wittgenstein take this stance? Panpsychism seems to be within the same domain of ideas as OP's thread is considering. Not trying to hijack btw, just curious.
OP here. Not a panpsychist.
One day you will reconcile the mind-matter divide without collapsing everything into one side like a dimwit, I believe in you. BTW this is merely a preliminary exercise to begin doing philosophy proper, so very far from the end of it.
It would legitimately take me a month to explain to you why what you're saying is something every undergraduate student "thinks" within first few months of studying phil - this is 100% unrelated to Wittgenstein by the way, you have basic intuitions against correspondence theory of truth, maybe some skepticism about mind-independent reality, notions that have been thought for literally thousands of years
OP here. I'm sure you can do it in a few sentences. Give it a try. Everyone here talks shit but no one ever backs it up with substantive discussion or original thoughts. Just dismissive handwaiving and appeals to authority.
>Just dismissive handwaiving and appeals to authority.
These things tend to happen when people are trying to avoid arguing with a self-righteous crackpot.
in timaeus they literally flew through the universe, but gate this so at least a few people frick up
That has nothing to do with Witt as others have pointed out. Seems more Nietzche. Also you can't just assert that without argument as if it is self-evident. There is no necessary reason that the human mind can't perceive real truth. At least there is no definitive argument I've seen stating otherwise. Of course we are restricted to our senses and cognitions. What's the alternative? That does not mean our senses and cognitions are necessarily air-gapped and fundamentally insulated from the rest of reality.
>There is no necessary reason that the human mind can't perceive real truth
Yes there is. How can a thing possibly know what itself is?
I see your have nothing to add. Sad. Another university robot who can't think.