Was Wittgenstein a charlatan?

File: Heidegger.jpg (78KB, 600x710px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x710px

No

Analytic philosophy bro

>>8369867
obviously not when the proof for his work is in your head

you are wittgenstein

>>8369867
your words dont mean anything

best philosopher of all time imo

>>8370213
It doesn't matter if your Wittgenstein is my Wittgenstein, it only matters that Wittgenstein is the thing in the box. In the ground.

>>8370256
except we're not talking about whats in the box

File: tmp_25996-USA-OBAMA-GUNS-3-639x4001762931482.jpg (55KB, 639x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 639x400px

>tell them I’ve had a wonderful life
every time

>>8369867

He is among those who started the 20th century philosophical trend that all Human language is essentially 'not fit for purpose' - when it comes to things like philosophy/reality/truth/etc.

Even if you agree with this conclusion, like the post-modernists/structuralists who build their careers around it, there remains the problem of just what we can (or should) do about it.

Icycalm/Antony Zyrmpas/Alex Kierkegaard thinks he is:

>Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".

>How totally ignorant of philosophy the Anglo-Saxons must have been to see Wittgenstein as God, when he was barely even a philosopher.

>On philosophy being an emergent property of the sciences. Neither Wittgenstein nor the scientists can grasp this. They cannot even grasp the concept of emergence, after all, how could they hope to grasp this?

>Wittgenstein basically wanted to shut up all talk of spirituality. This desire was at the heart of his involvement with philosophy. "Think what you want, but at least shut up about it and spare the rest of us of your asinine claptrap." No wonder he became the poster child of the spiritually barren Anglo-Saxons. But Baudrillard doesn't mention him even once.

>Wittgenstein is — once you have got past "that hocus-pocus of mathematical form", in which, like Spinoza, he encased and masked his philosophy — utterly exasperating. Ethics is transcendental, aesthetics is transcendental, logic is transcendental! — everything is transcendental! But all these things are in the universe, you goddamn brainless twit, how can they be transcendental! The universe is everything, nothing is transcendental! that's just a word imbeciles use to signify that they are incapable of understanding something! — And sure enough, he understood neither logic, nor ethics, nor aesthetics — among a great many other things, practically everything! — partly because he didn't bother reading enough of what his predecessors wrote, but mainly because he was a little man with small experiences and therefore incapable of making any progress in psychology, which is where all these "transcendental" categories begin — and end.

>>8370511
>But Baudrillard doesn't mention him even once
Käck