Who wants to discuss the book that ended Philosophy?

No takers?

I don't get this gimmick. Why do you post this or a similar thread every day? It's not like people freak out about it. It's just sort of.. there.

>>8999631
Simply trying to inform the masses of this forgotten masterpiece or as I like to call it, 'The Proof of the Existence of God and Other Such Things'.

File: Wissenshaft_der_logik.jpg (20KB, 260x457px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 260x457px

Sure lad, what do you want to talk about?

>>8999636
There is nothing to talk about, we must pass over in silence :^)

>>8999455
What are one or two or three of the most profound trains of thought, conclusions, concepts in it?

Any controversia (beliefs)l or debatable claims, from you or the text?

>>9000650
It won't make sense if I explain it, you have to read it for yourself to fully wake up to what he is saying.

>>8999455
I am open to hearing what you have to say. Whenever I first got into Witty, it was mostly through that Zeitgeist biopic, a few YouTube lectures (ranging in precision from general ed. stuff like School of Life to UTA Lectures and John Searle's commentary), and then I moved onto the Tractatus which was just a logic manual with a few odd atomistic propositions ending with the most forced BTFO conclusion in pseudo-analytic literature. I briefly read bots and pieces from the Blue and Brown Books because "muh Ex Machina." I remember reading "On Certainty" and not knowing what the fuck was actually happening, and that the dude was more of a purposefully vague, one-upistic professor rather than particularly brilliant, kind of what I imagine Diogenes would have been like if he had read Frege or something.

But long story short, I'm open. Can you start by telling me how Wittgenstein ended philosophy with this specific text. I've heard continental dept. memes claiming the Tractatus ended philosophy, but it wasn't till I joined this community that I heard of "On Certainty" in the same vein.

>>9000681
You have to read philosophical investigations before on certainty and you have to learn to LOOK rather than constantly theorising.

>>9000659
No. Highlight, generalize, summarize

What are one or two or three of the most profound trains of thought, conclusions, concepts in it?

Any controversia (beliefs)l or debatable claims, from you or the text?

>>9000659
>>9000698

Did you even read dit? doubt it

Describe 1 single point he made, important/profound topic he discussed

File: pepe.jpg (12KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x250px

>>9000659

>>9001195
>>9001210
>>9001222
There are two reasons I am being obscure (Yes, I have read it, several times).

1. You sincerely won't get it from my explanation, Wittgenstein compresses a great deal in his works and he writes them in a manner which guides one through a process, it can't be summarised, attempts at summary don't do it justice and will seem like stupid teenage crap.

2. I want you to actually read a fucking book for once in your lives, especially something as short as this

>>9002202
No. Highlight, generalize, summarize

What are one or two or three of the most profound trains of thought, conclusions, concepts in it?

Any controversia (beliefs)l or debatable claims, from you or the text?

Describe 1 single point he made, important/profound topic he discussed

What are one or two or three of the most profound trains of thought, conclusions, concepts in it?

Any controversia (beliefs)l or debatable claims, from you or the text?

I'll read it later I promise, I'll understsand it, one sliver of a general point

>>8999455
Holy shit OP, this is a some gold bait. Buttfrustration everywhere.

You haven't read it tho.

>>8999621
Takers? See >>9002363

You are not even taking your own thread.

OP here.

Listen, retards.

You must first read the book to understand.


Once you have climbed the ladder and kicked it from under you, you can no longer explain.

Opie here, guys, I swear I read it. It just, when you read a book like this, and study it intensely as I have, and are intelligent enough to discuss it and understand it, you really just cant even say 1 single general point about any of it, its just so powerful and intelligent, and you are so powerful and intelligent, that they just sort of cancel out, and leave you in this state of transcendent enlightenment, it is not even worthy to say one thing about this book, I definitely read, and definitely understood by the way... seriously, I swear, it is not worth trying to toss an oat to you plebs, even if you have read 100 philosophy texts, he just uses words that are likely not in any of them, and ok, I will give you one gem, he basically destroys philosophy, like, so even if I wanted to give you 1 of my many hundreds of knowledges I had and gained from this book, I couldn't, because, one shouldn't speak, right? Thats the joke... get it? This thread is impossible, because philosophy is impossible? you fucking idiots

>>9003570
OP here.

Y'all clearly in another league than me and Wittgenstein. Perhaps you should read some basic propositional calculus before you dance with me.

On Certainty, Proposition 5.67, 'There is indeed the inexpressible, now you are going around in 'Slab!'

Keep up.

I swear I have read it.

>>9006096
>There is indeed the inexpressible

One of the saddest, but seemingly true, statements.

I am presuming this refers to: inexpressible/expressible: only in terms of language?

Or, did he imply there are things inexpressible, absolutely, inexpressible in no possible way (such as computer models, etc.)

And what was meant by, 'now you are going around in 'Slab'?

or did you write that as a joke?

>>9006386
>>9004485

OP here.

This is unrelated to the topic, if you want to speak about the Tractatus, please create a different thread.

>>9003570
So why start a thread you insufferable imbecile?

>cannot speak about it
>knows there is a while fucking book about it
Clearly the one who is too thick to put it in words is you, anon.

>>9006386
>>9006419
wit daddy would want it this way

(Is this just saying, the noumena? There are so many things, feelings,sights, realnesses, that do not seem like they can be depicted with words, so I guess there are some things, which can never be depicted, such as feelings, because they are so subtle, and direct, and momentary, and every millisecond certain stars and planets aligns, the particular motion of cells; I dont think I can begin to think what could try to be meant by, can all possible imagery be created; all possible, thingness in 3d type of interactions possible, be known, witnessed, put down on paper and stone,

>>8999455
This is by that guy who didn't believe in set theory, right?