What would be Wittgenstein's advice?

Typos

>was is
*is a

>the seriousness of the matter
Forgot to delete that part when expanding on paragraph

>>8490721
>Suppose there was is situation where one is trying to explain, to someone else, something that is extremely important; however, the person that is being explained to is not receptive as they do not know or understand the context and how complex the situation actually is and therefore think of it in a black and white simplistic manner—where they end up only being able to see that their own opinion on the matter is the correct one (even though they weren't there for the context and have very little information regarding the subject.). It also doesn't help that this person has a passive aggressive grudge against the explainer.
I believe he read Indian poetry in that kind of situation.

To my mind I guess he would "show" rather than "tell" as reasoning with a "picture" is often more readily apparent. I think you could also suggest he'd stop reasoning and just use physical force as reasoning would be useless and the real world would have to make itself apparent.

What are your thoughts OP?

>>8490721
Two quotes for you OP:

>And this is how it is: if only you do not try to utter what is unutterable then nothing gets lost. But the unutterable will be - unutterably - contained in what has been uttered!

>Telling someone something he does not understand is pointless, even if you add that he will not understand it. (That so often happens with someone you love.) If you have a room which you do not want certain people to get into, put a lock on it for which they do not have the key. But there is no point in talking to them about it, unless of course you want them to admire the room from the outside! The honourable thing to do is to put a lock on the door which will be noticed only by those who can open it, not by the rest.

>>8490721
>>8490798
Also what you're saying is kind of one of the central themes of PI. So . . . read that whole book.

>>8490721
>Suppose there was is situation where one is trying to explain, to someone else, something that is extremely important; however, the person that is being explained to is not receptive as they do not know or understand the context and how complex the situation actually is and therefore think of it in a black and white simplistic manner—where they end up only being able to see that their own opinion on the matter is the correct one (even though they weren't there for the context and have very little information regarding the subject.). It also doesn't help that this person has a passive aggressive grudge against the explainer.

So you were trying to discourage /pol/ from antisemitism?

>>8490766
>I believe he read Indian poetry
Anyone in particular? Do you know why he read this type of poetry?

>"show rather than "tell" as reasoning with a "picture" is often more readily apparent.
That is good advice. For someone to see something rather than to hear it from someone they have some negative feelings for may be able to help them view the situation in a more objective manner.

>He'd stop reasoning and just use physical force as reasoning would be useless and the real world would have to make itself apparent.
That makes sense, but in this situation this can be difficult to achieve without that person at the same time getting the outcome that they desire; the outcome that would affect many in negative ways. After they see this outcome, I know they will have wished that they had made a different decision, though it would be too late, as the outcome will have already happened.

>>8490798
The only problem is that in this situation, there is a person that holds an amount of power that at the current rate will come to a conclusion based on the negative emotions they have for the one who tried to explain something to them.

>>8490808
I was going to read his first book first. I had been advised to go chronologically. I do very much intend to read PI though.

>>8490822
The situation is not internet based. Though I do wonder about the differences of perception between what is spoken and what is read.

>>8490808
Is that the best place to start?

This really has little to do with Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein himself would probably get mad, call him a philistine in his diary and get on with his life. His answer would probably vary depending on his age and what beliefs and social status, at that point in his life, he had. Just watch this: http://www.webofstories.com/play/freeman.dyson/47;jsessionid=4669489F4D11C80FC8A0D1CB7A6A2779

As for your own pickle, it seems that you've already made up your mind about the person that is being explained to. IF, as you say, "They cannot get past their personal bias and see the full situation", then there's no point in trying. Unless, of course, you're exaggerating and attributing to him literally every negative trait you can (out of your own bias and hatred for the man) to his character such that indeed, no consensus and understanding can come out of your communication. Crappy analogy, but: You're literally asking if a skyscraper is a small building, after having described it as a tall one.

>>8490721
Not hijacking the thread here or anything, but could someone recommend me a place to start with Wittgenstein, and mandatory books you ought to have read before you start reading his works?

>>8492769
Tractatus cannot be understood without knowing the logico-mathematical climate of his time. You need to know some Logic beforehand but you also need to realise that Logic back then was only in its infancy. The non-mathematical parts are obscure as hell and there are many schools that disagree about their interpretation. The book is really dated (as is PI) and if you really want to get into metaphysics or logic you better do it with some contemporary introduction to the field.

>>8492779
Aha, I see. Are there any specific authors or books you recommend for these introductions?

>>8492785
Metaphysics: A Survey of Metaphysics by E. J. Lowe
Logic: Mathematical Logic by Joseph Schoenfeld

>>8490721
just b urself ;)

>>8490721
>5' 6"

>>8492925
What does this mean?

>>8492779
>as is PI
How so?

lol just be accept the fact that you dad wont understand you, he lives in a different world, and just go find a job as a gardener or something manual that will allow you to build a world on your own, in a practical way.

>>8490721
>Suppose there was is situation where one is trying to explain, to someone else, something that is extremely important; however, the person that is being explained to is not receptive as they do not know or understand the context and how complex the situation actually is and therefore think of it in a black and white simplistic manner—where they end up only being able to see that their own opinion on the matter is the correct one (even though they weren't there for the context and have very little information regarding the subject.).

Sounds pretty much like every argument I've ever had/heard.