He spiritually, mentally, emotionally, philosophically, logically, academically and professionally BTFO Bertrand Russell.
I think Wittgenstein deserves a smug pepe of him
He spiritually, mentally, emotionally, philosophically, logically, academically and professionally BTFO Bertrand Russell.
This is such a lame way to view intellectual growth. How the frick do you expect to grow intellectually if you view being receptive to criticism as a holy epic reddit BTFO? Sophists, man.
Party pooper. Let us enjoy and savior this moment. A genius student legendarily destroyed his professor's work in a letter and you're being a homosexual reddit b***h.
This is an old subject. Are you new to IQfy or something? You view knowledge like it is a debate with a victor and because of that you probably argue dishonestly and underhandedly so you don't think less of yourself. Bad habit.
>This is an old subject.
Most of what is posted here can be considered "an old subject." Most of the authors we discuss are dead, so this is a very dishonest line of argument. It seems you don't want people to mock your precious Bertrand "The Cuck" Russell. No other reason to protest against a pro-Wittgenstein post.
Perhaps I came off as too aggressive. Maybe you do care about thinking, and if you do, try to make it an effort to remove sophistic tendencies like caring about winning debates.
>It seems you don't want people to mock your precious Bertrand "The Cuck" Russell
I am not gonna defend the king of the midwits.
I am now reading Mong biography of Wittgenstein and unfortunately I have to admit that Russell looks over there like giga cuck meanwhile Wittgenstein is doing everything he want like a little child.
Was he schizophrenic? That would explain the effect he had on Russell too
kek
>We were both cross from the heat. I showed him a crucial part of what I had been writing. He said it was all wrong, not realizing the difficulties—that he had tried my view and knew it wouldn't work. I couldn't understand his objection—in fact he was very inarticulate—but I feel in my bones that he must be right, and that he has seen something that I have missed. If I could see it too I shouldn't mind, but as it is, it is worrying, and has rather destroyed the pleasure in my writing—I can only go on with what I see, and yet I feel it is probably all wrong, and that Wittgenstein will think me a dishonest scoundrel for going on with it. Well, well—it is the younger generation knocking at the door—I must make room for him when I can, or I shall become an incubus. But at the moment I was rather cross.
>in fact he was very inarticulate—but I feel in my bones that he must be right
Kek, I just imagine Wittgenstein reading his work and mumbling, his brain moving faster than his mouth before he just levels his eyes at Russel and shouts "IT'S SHIT" then storms off. Based autist Wittgenstein.
What was his critique?
Wittgenstein = Mozart
Russell = Salieri
Wittgenstein = Glenn Gould
Russell = Wertheimer
That Thomas Bernhard book looks good. Will prob read it tn.
It might be his best one.
Are we talking about The Loser?
Yes.
thanks
I love Gould.
Both Russell and Wittgenstein are only analytic philosophers, so who cares?
Wittgenstein is beyond analytic philosophy. Someone who says that he is disgusted by people who only see the world through a scientific lens doesn't belong on the same category as a full-on bugman cuck like Russell.
This is correct for early wittgenstein, who is a logical positivist scientism cuck. The late wittgenstein, however, is pretty much a completely different thinker who has nothing in common with the former other than perhaps an interest in studying language and philosophy.
>The late wittgenstein, however, is pretty much a completely different thinker who has nothing in common with the former other than perhaps an interest in studying language and philosophy.
Considering one of the major movements in analytic philosophy was more or less inspired by Philosophical Investigations, I don't think you can separate from that movement no matter how much they might like to.
Wittgenstein is also the single person most responsible for the the features of analytic philosophy continentals despise, so I don't get why they make him the exception.
Actually some of the earliest commentators to make fruitful use of Wittgensteni's later work were continentals, like Ricoeur and Bourdieu. Others understood it immediately, like Wisdom and Sellars, and Rhees and Winch, especially people with pragmatism backgrounds, but it took a good generation or two for non-moronic Wittgenstenians to appear aside from these isolated instances in the analytic world. Just look at Kripke's horrendous misunderstanding of it, or how long it fook for people like Brandom and McDowell to digest watered-down versions of it via Sellars and reading it against the grain of Dewey (as with Wittgenstein, none of them seem to be able to understand James without substantial dilution either). And then what emerged was a cringe Rortian movement turning Wittgenstein's grammatical "therapy" concept into a philosophical dead-end and academic cult.
But Ricoeur got it immediately. "Linguistic philosophy" was really pretty bad, and took decades and decades to catch up with basic insights in Wittgenstein, and then only through substantial cross-fertilization with pragmatism.
Of course you can go back and see the full Wittgensteinian insight already in the '50s in Wisdom and Sellars. But read anybody who read THEM, and it's evident that they are not "getting" it, not directly. And this isn't helped by how obtusely they write. If you already understand Wittgenstein, you can instantly see what Sellars is doing, and you can see that Wisdom is just speaking gnomically in Wittgensteinian, but I can't imagine '60s analytic midwits trying to make sense of it. Especially with Kripke further queering the pitch.
Teach me anon-sama; how do I become as well read as you in modern philosophy?
I know none of these people. I've just finished with James and am going to go Russel > Witt
You should at least go into the ideas when trying to discuss these things. All your namedropping nothing unless your willing to to elaborate.
Every time you post you only serve to prove the Quine quote from the Rorty essay you so frequently reference.
You seem like a very educated person, but you posts seem to indicate the very real weaknesses of engaging with philosophy in an historicist manner.
How did Kripke misread Wittgenstein?
Lol all these midwits got filtered by 9th grade maths
seethe analyticgay
>Wittgenstein's religious belief emerged during his service for the Austrian army in World War I, and he was a devoted reader of Dostoevsky's and Tolstoy's religious writings. He viewed his wartime experiences as a trial in which he strived to conform to the will of God, and in a journal entry from 29 April 1915, he writes:
>"Perhaps the nearness of death will bring me the light of life. May God enlighten me. I am a worm, but through God I become a man. God be with me. Amen."
You can just make it a version of this specific image and it would work.
>>"Perhaps the nearness of death will bring me the light of life. May God enlighten me.
What was the course of Wittgenstein's spiritual journey?
He was soldiering in the war after being Russell’s atheist student and they are on a captured Russian ship that would guard ports and also move up the river at night. Wittgenstein was the searchlight guy during fire fights and obviously would be the easiest target. Seemingly fighting occurred every other night? And then they’d participate in bigger battles well near krakow.
Anyway if I remember correctly it was a Saturday and they were given the day off for relaxing and ‘shopping’ but the town they were shopping in was abandoned as it was near the front. With the exception of one book store. Wittgenstein went in and the owner had only one book left. It was Tolstoy’s ‘the gospel in brief’ so he bought it.
At the time he was working on what would become Tractatus but as he read Tolstoy he seemed to realize Tolstoy had (and Tolstoy was paraphrasing Christ) essentially found himself in the same mental despair he was in philosophically and through the gospel had satisfied,within the strict logical world Wittgenstein used, his problems and outlined a solution.
In fact the Gospel in brief is essential to understand Tractatus and it’s funny because Witty has a cult of personality due to commies, homosexuals, and Russelian types thinking he’s in their side but the reality is that he was a far right mystic
Is religion the answer to schizophrenic disorganization?
That’s cute but schizophrenia is a medical condition with clear physiological causes.
Wittgenstein was just socially moronic
What you see as physiological manifestation is already there before the triggering. You don't need to experience delusions to diagnose it. Except if you're an anglo, they love their DSM
But what recognisable features does he have to go on a Pepe?
Iirc he also literally blew the frick out off Russell.
Has Russel ever had an experience which didn't leave him reeling with his desire for life shattered?
Frankly, I feel a bit bad for him. Especially given Midwitt's tendency to deliver magisterial pronouncements without a moment's thought though having no logical grounding whatsoever.
When he fricked Eliot's wife.
You should have no compassion for this sneed Black personlover.
Loose sexual morals don't immediately make me lose faith in a man. How could they? I hate myself sufficiently, already.
I do grant that cucking a man, a friend at that, is possibly the highest form of sexual immorality. I've often revolved around the question of whether sex can be moral at all, mostly in a Biblical sense as to whether Adam could have happily coupled with Eve. IMO, sex is just one of the more pronounced immoralities which are irredivorcable from human existence.
Pity! So much free utility LOOKS like it's up for grabs.
>tho
Wittgenstein = Andy Warhol
Russell = Chris Chan
Flip then around so witt is based instead of cringe
>His criticism tho
he did when he was the meme philosopher of the month
>Wittgenstein
Who?