>yes goyim your thousands of years of philosophy are just

>I didn't get it

Should have just said.

File: image.png (516KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 853x480px

the sad truth

So what's the problem

>>2361747
>I have now solved philosophy forever
>oh wait

>>2361870
Nobody gets it. NOBODY.

It's pure Jewish sophistry.

>>2361900
>It's pure Jewish sophistry.

Maybe for you, retard.

You quite literally, did not get it.

the "language-game" is the most rudimentary form of his ideas that you probably picked from a Wikipedia article or from a shitty reading of his books.

Also, your constant reference to his Jewishness is strange, he was raised Catholic and was a follower of Tolstoy.


In other words, fuck off, dork.

Someone explain his work and why he is considered a super genius.

>>2361959
Try reading his works for yourself:

http://pastebin.com/9pUqMKnk

>>2361959

Basically

>all i know is that nothing can be known lol one upped socrates and solved philosophy, also all philosophy is bullshit and word games so dont bother with it bro i totally reached the absolute truth

>>2361966
>I didn't get it

Why don't you fuck off already.

Wittgenstein doesn't believe that nothing can be known or relativism.

Didn't Wittgenstein spend most of his career picking the Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus apart privately anyway?

>>2362006
The movement from the tractacus to the later manuscripts is one of from specific to general rules
it's a continuation of his work, not a repudiation

>>2361971

Then what did he mean? Apparently nobody gets it. Enlighten us then.

>>2362024
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
give it read and shoot any questions you have on the subject, and hopefully we can clarify them.

>>2361959
I don't really feel like I understand the finer points of Wittgenstein but in general it's hard to explain his work in a nutshell because his early and later periods were very different.

In the Tractatus the idea is that language creates a logical picture of the world that corresponds in a 1:1 way to reality. This influenced many philosophers at the time to argue that any idea which can't be spoken about in a logical way is meaningless, but this wasn't Wittgenstein's point. He argued that the things philosophy is trying to solve never get solved not because they are meaningless, but because their meaning is beyond the ability of language to actually refer to. So for example you can't make a proof of God's existence or even a logical argument for it because the limitations of language mean you cannot really even talk about God.

The later Wittgenstein abandoned the idea that language corresponds to reality in a 1:1 way and that's when he started developing the idea of the language game. There his point was that words are not actually pictures but are more like tools, so language can refer to things without logically corresponding to them. The same word may be used in a different way depending on the particular language game in which you are using it as a tool. I think he's actually kind of explaining how poetry or mysticism can describe reality in ways that philosophy can't, because philosophy is trying to play only one very specific language game.

That's as basic as I can do, and like I said I don't have a comprehensive understanding in the first place. I don't think anyone does really, if you look at accounts from Wittgenstein's contemporaries his reputation as a genius was as much from the experience of living around him as from the content of his writing. I get the sense that you can't really understand his work without also studying his life.

An interesting book I'd recommend if you want to get an idea of what I mean is Wittgenstein's Poker.