what did he mean by this?(unironically)

Ben Stiller BTFO

nombre si esta dificil jajajaja xD

Keep going.

6.522
There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.

6.53
The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method.

6.54
My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

>>8683972
>For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed.
>If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.
So he combines answers and questions into a single entity. I can get behind that.
>Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.
So he asserts here that even skeptics must agree there IS an answer to the questions, even if they deny the current answers are valid.
>Of course there is then no question left
There are a limited number of questions in the world (not sure where he pulls this from)
>The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.
If we answer every question then we've answered the question of life.

IDK, thats a first crack

6.521
The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.
(Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?)

>>8684014

You're way off.

>>8683972
Surely he means that 'the problem of life' is non-existent and a mad made 'question' based on illogical entitlement.

>>8684033
Man-made* excuse me.

>>8684033

Metaphysical questions and propositions have a logical form, they are just 'senseless' i.e. their terms do not refer to things 'in the world'. Questions of natural science are also 'man-made'.

>>8684043
Exactly

>>8684051

I was correcting you.

File: 1464650859676.png (133KB, 500x586px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x586px

>>8684051
>>8684066
holy kek

File: 1439010685642.gif (464KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 500x338px

>>8684014
yeah this is shite, let me try

>>8683972
>6.5
>For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed.
If a function f does not return a value, then f does not exist.
>The riddle does not exist.
>If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.
Equivalent statement to the above, if f exists it returns a value.
>6.51
>Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.
>For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something can be said.
Doubt exists in the form of questions. A question only exists when there is an answer, and an answer can only be if it is existent and sensical. In a realm where the form of questions are null, answers are null, therefore knowledge is null. In an epistemological void, doubt cannot exist.
>6.52
>We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
>6.521
>The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.
Scientific questions are tangible. The question to life is by nature intangible, therefore there is no question to life and no answer.

D-d-did I do it /lit/?

chales este tipo si que sabia o__o

>>8684121
Close enough. Graduate high school before you try next time.

>>8684132
Did I miss anything?

>if the book is not in the bottom shelf then it doesn't exist
>the solution is not acknowledging the absurd corner you've painted yourself in for no reason whatsoever
>the solution is doubling down and ignoring the plethora of phenomena outside of it

Cryptomaterialism - not even once

>>8684121
>muh math

>>8684132
How about you correct him then, or does that require too much of you?

He meant that nothing can be expressed in language, as evidenced by this thread.

he meant that all things that present themselves to us in consciousness, in form of questions, are simply illusions created by the mind that consciousness, using the intellect, can solve, but that once all this is done nothing is really done because it is the mind playing with itself, formulating the same illusions in two different forms, presenting us an interactive play in the theatre of consciousness while everything that is happening in the back of the mind remains untouched and unresolved until, by action, all these 'questions' disappear as irrelevant.

by saying that having left no questions is the answer, he means that the only way to get rid of questions is by building, by action, a world that one will understand, cause one has built it, and it will therefore generate no questions cause everything is in place, or rather cause you know the palce of everything, for you have put it there.

What are some examples of metaphysical questions he would have said 'do not exist' or are improper to state or attempt to discuss? I know the usual are God and Soul, but are there any others?

What would be thought of the question: Have real unicorns ever existed in the universe?

Of course it is unanswerable to us, unknowable, so he would say the question has no right to be asked, but this says nothing about the potential for unicorns to have existed in the universe or not. There is nothing said to imply they could not (I know this is spaghetti monster, prove a negative stuff... but still)

I've never read anything of Wittgenstein, he seems like a guy who spent a lifetime masturbating to manmade linguistic/mathematical concepts, pretending like they're real.
How wrong am I?

>>8684980
so wrong that its not even worth correcting.

>>8683972
Which episode of Dr Who did he say that in?