What should I read after reading the Tractatus? I have a mathematical background and want to dive into analytic philosophy.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
What should I read after reading the Tractatus?
Philosophical Investigations. Much less autistic, but still fairly autistic.
Carnap's Aufbau
>Cassirer's Substance and Function
>Everything by Sellars
>Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>Everything by Peirce and James
>Kline's Loss of Certainty
aristotle, anything really.
because whatever you study later has taken influence from aristotle
consider it like learning basic algebra before abstract algebra
Read Philosophical Investigations next.
Ignore people like
Then once you're done PI, lose your analytical philosophy, it is literally just cope all the way down. If you absolutely must, then you might continue from Wittgenstein with Kripke, especially "Wittgenstein On Rules and Private Language" and/or "Naming and Necessity". You could also take a step back to Frege with "Sense and Reference". Many of the early analyticals like Russell and Moore, however, are barely even philosophers, and you should ignore their philosophy apart from the stuff on language/logic. Bonevac has a very good playlist of his classes on the analytical tradition here:
Stop linking philosophy professors who make Youtube videos. People will eventually realize they're all broken-ass men with autistic/narcissistic tendencies and a fricked up personal life.
What the frick are you talking about schizo
>schizo
Meaningless online social media-addicted Zoomer buzzword
Phil professors are likely to make good youtube videos about philosophy.
>Many of the early analyticals like Russell and Moore, however, are barely even philosophers,
I really don't see how you could look at those two and think that they're barely even philosophers in the most conventional sense of the term. If anything Wittgenstein is much less of a philosopher than either of those two.
>Russell
His major contributions are the Principia Mathematica and Russell's Paradox. While these are extremely important philosophical contributions, they're contributions to logic and set theory first and foremost, and not philosophy in the traditional sense of metaphysics/epistemology/etc. That is to say, it's verging on mathematics proper. Russell's understanding of Kant was abysmal, and similarly of Hegel, and this misunderstanding tainted the analytical tradition inspired by him. I respect Russell much more than I respect Moore, however in my mind he's much closer to a mathematician than a philosopher, and his opinions on much of philosophy proper (such as those on Kant) make me think he didn't even try to understand it.
>Moore
His opinion of the external world issue is enough for me to disregard him completely. Any hand wavy bullshit "Well isn't it obvious?" about serious philosophical issues like this discredits one as a philosopher in my eyes.
>If anything Wittgenstein is much less of a philosopher than either of those two.
Wittgenstein in my eyes is a philosopher through and through. Why would you say if anything he's less of one than Russell/Moore?
Those might be Russell's most important contributions, but Russell wrote quite a bit on the subject of metaphysics, and while his position did change multiple times in his life, some of them are quite interesting. He also wrote quite on ethics and politics, and these are not so interesting. I agree with you that he was a rather poor and uncharitable reader of philosophy, but he did have an interest and willingness to engage with the broader history of philosophy than someone like Wittgenstein ever did. I'd argue what, as far as it seems you're concerned, actually tainted analytic philosophy was Wittgenstein's ahistorical approach rather than Russell's bad book.
Even if you think that Moore is doing it poorly, I still think he was trying to engage with philosophical issues. I'd also say that his work ethics is important enough for him to. meaningfully be considered a philosopher.
Wittgenstein is more limited in his areas of interest and engagement with the broader philosophical conversation than either of the other two, and his approach is more responsible for the limitations and shortcomings of analytic philosophy than either of the other two. While I wouldn't go as far as to say he isn't a philosopher, I think given the standards you've provided, it's easy to see Wittgenstein having limitations that make him seem like less of a philosopher in the conventional sense than the other two.
The fact you bring up Kant and Hegel at all shows you don't know Russell at all, because analytics don't give two shits about Russell's opinions on Kant and Hegel, since that's stuff he wrote on the history of philosophy and analytics don't read Russell's popular works because they agree they're shit. His contributions to analytic philosophy are in his metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, etc. Not his fricking histories (or ethics or religion or whatever else you pseuds read instead of his actually worthwhile writings).
I wouldn't trust someone who couldn't understand Kant and Hegel anyway.
Wittgenstein wouldn't be much better in that case.
Except he did understand both of them.
I will never understand why Wittgenstein fans suck his dick so much but don't even investigate Carnap, at most they investigate Frege thankfully.
>Carnap
>Vienna Circle
Lol, you realize they completely misinterpreted Wittgenstein, right?
Actually he misunderstood Carnap completely. And Schlick, before becoming positivist, was doing more impressive shit than Wittgenstein was during the same time period as him, but Schlick was more modest and didn't give himself more credit for coming up with shit he came up with independent of Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was surrounded by modest geniuses who lauded praise to him (Russell, Carnap, and Schlick) while he bit the hand that fed him because he was a schizo sociopath that shoved pencils up kids' noses. Not that this makes him a worse philosopher, but he's massively overrated by people who simultaneously underrate other philosophers they've never properly even studied. I guarantee you have not studied Carnap in-depth.
I don't need to study Carnap or Schilick or whatever crap philosopher you come up with. Wittgenstein was the peak of western philosophy, everything that came before him, be it continental or analytical, synthetized into his Investigations, he was the final period of western philosophy, I do not care about anyone else that came after him for they do not matter. In any case, the Wittgenstein you're trying to paint here is the not the edifying man he was. He bit the hand of Russell, Moore and other hacks that recognized his genius? Of course he did, he saw the the amoral and degenerate nature of those people, he saw their true face and he hated it because unlike those people Wittgenstein was a man of faith.
Cringe
Wittgenstein never read Aristotle.
https://www.tumblr.com/frickyeahlogical/128964910533/analytic-philosophy-reading-list-for-the-self
Oh and Sellars and McDowell, which is only non-autistic people in this field
>Kline's Loss of Certainty
Crank shit. Not philosophically significant either
Start with On Sense and Reference and On Denoting and go from there.