Who wants to discuss the book that ended Philosophy?

Haven't read it but I hate philosophy and thinking about thinking. Will I like this?

>>8866235
Depends, if you know the history of Philosophy and its bias towards abstractions and misunderstandings of language then this book may end for you centuries of nonsense.

If on the other hand you don't know much philosophy, then this book may seem obvious or rather, it may even seem childish/unintelligible.

As a prelude, you should first read Descarte's 'Meditations on First Philosophy' then read G.E. Moore's 'A Proof of the External World' and then read this book.

but theres nothing to discuss...

>>8866683
wow...

File: mys.png (139KB, 830x334px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 830x334px

>>6.4 All propositions are of equal value.
>yet I am not treating them as a singularity (also an illogical concept)
>>6.41-2
>misuse of 'sense', 'world', 'value', etc as if they even refer to transcendental subjects
>>6.42
>[X] is transcendental
Wouldn't Wittgenstein like to think so?

>What’s attractive about looking at all philosophers in part suspiciously and in part mockingly is not that we find again and again how innocent they are — how often and how easily they make mistakes and get lost, in short, how childish and child-like they are — but that they are not honest enough in what they do, while, as a group, they make huge, virtuous noises as soon as the problem of truthfulness is touched on, even remotely. Collectively they take up a position as if they had discovered and arrived at their real opinions through the self-development of a cool, pure, god-like disinterested dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of all ranks, who are more honest than they are and more stupid with their talk of “inspiration”—), while basically they defend with reasons sought out after the fact an assumed principle, an idea, an “inspiration,” for the most part some heart-felt wish which has been abstracted and sifted. They are all advocates who do not want to call themselves that.— and very remote from the courage of conscience which would admit this, even this, to itself, very remote from that brave good taste which would concede as much, whether to warn an enemy or friend, or whether to mock themselves as an expression of their own high spirits.

File: IMG_20161120_114508.jpg (25KB, 228x346px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 228x346px

>>8866179
Who wants to discuss the book that resurrected philosophy?

>people think they understand that book without having read the entire works of W.

>>8868629
But I have :^)

>>8868796
are you op? if so that aint true.