Him saying metaphysics transcend language and thus lacking meaning is straight up dork behavior. >"We can only speak about what can be said clearly, and any metaphysical assertion lacks verifiable meaning."
utter bullshit.
hermetic language and deleuzian deterritorialization shits on this guys grave, with all due respect.
you do not seem to go any further than Deleuze's word on wittgenstein (which is quite sad considering the fact that Deleuze is rather talking about Wittgensteinians and Viennese gays)
Even the ineffable has a name, I enjoy saying things and the futility of theorizing. My life is pure vanity and will live it as such with all its consequences.
>"Philosophical Investigations" seems better that the Tractatus in that regard.
I am not judging its historical importance or influence, just my opinion.
As far as I am aware, it does. It is not a central point of the work but it is scattered through the pages. Philosophical Investigations he developed a more contextual and pragmatic view of language and ethics.
what would be his view on ethics? I'm only interested in langage as long as it has ethical implications (as well as Wittgenstein)
11 months ago
Anonymous
Wittgenstein's view on ethics suggests that ethical statements are nonsensical and unsayable in his early work, but in his later work, he emphasized the role of language, cultural practices, and shared understandings in shaping ethical concepts, highlighting their contextuality and diversity. He rejected universal moral principles and emphasized the expression of attitudes, emotions, and values within specific linguistic and cultural frameworks.
It did actually. His struggle with communication because of information variance and his conclusion that this disqualifies one from communicating in the first place was profound to me. It helped me understand my little brother's Asperger's Syndrome better. My brother will just be absolutely silent if you ask any question that doesn't have a concrete factual wikipedia answer.
"Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must be silent"
I remember it having some very interesting remarks in the beginning that I mainly re-read a lot, mainly with regards to the sensibility of statements.
I think too many people overlook it just because he essentially threw out the picture theory in favor of use meaning, but that doesn't mean you can't glean a few things.
also do you guys consider his charge against metaphysics seriously? Did it close an entire field of knowledge for you?
Him saying metaphysics transcend language and thus lacking meaning is straight up dork behavior.
>"We can only speak about what can be said clearly, and any metaphysical assertion lacks verifiable meaning."
utter bullshit.
hermetic language and deleuzian deterritorialization shits on this guys grave, with all due respect.
you do not seem to go any further than Deleuze's word on wittgenstein (which is quite sad considering the fact that Deleuze is rather talking about Wittgensteinians and Viennese gays)
I am not taking Deleuze's word on Wittgenstein. He did not invent metaphysics. I am just Christian.
you are not taking his word yet you say similar shit
Wittgenstein was a radical Christian senpai
>Christian
Even though he was ethnically israeli.
Like Jesus
I really do not care, he negates metaphysics and it is only worth taking in count if you instead of creating anything just want to analyze something.
Even the ineffable has a name, I enjoy saying things and the futility of theorizing. My life is pure vanity and will live it as such with all its consequences.
>"Philosophical Investigations" seems better that the Tractatus in that regard.
I am not judging its historical importance or influence, just my opinion.
What do you mean by
>"Philosophical Investigations" seems better that the Tractatus in that regard.
Does the investigations tackles the question of the mystical and the ineffable, tackles ethics?
As far as I am aware, it does. It is not a central point of the work but it is scattered through the pages. Philosophical Investigations he developed a more contextual and pragmatic view of language and ethics.
what would be his view on ethics? I'm only interested in langage as long as it has ethical implications (as well as Wittgenstein)
Wittgenstein's view on ethics suggests that ethical statements are nonsensical and unsayable in his early work, but in his later work, he emphasized the role of language, cultural practices, and shared understandings in shaping ethical concepts, highlighting their contextuality and diversity. He rejected universal moral principles and emphasized the expression of attitudes, emotions, and values within specific linguistic and cultural frameworks.
It did actually. His struggle with communication because of information variance and his conclusion that this disqualifies one from communicating in the first place was profound to me. It helped me understand my little brother's Asperger's Syndrome better. My brother will just be absolutely silent if you ask any question that doesn't have a concrete factual wikipedia answer.
"Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must be silent"
First glance of actual usefulness of analytical philosophy. True joy.
I remember it having some very interesting remarks in the beginning that I mainly re-read a lot, mainly with regards to the sensibility of statements.
I think too many people overlook it just because he essentially threw out the picture theory in favor of use meaning, but that doesn't mean you can't glean a few things.
It's trash in light of philosophical investigations