Is there perhaps a reason you haven't read the greatest

>>9015977
couldn't be sure it was my hand holding the book

That's not Aristotle's Metaphysics.

>>9015977
i don't need other people to tell me how to think and live my life

>>9015990
t. oedipal child

>>9015977
That's not written by Nietzsche

>>9015979
Underrated

>>9015977
it's on my list and sometimes in the future i'll probably read it

File: 1481385830361.jpg (5KB, 200x161px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x161px

>>9015977
>read first sentence
>"If you do know that here is one hand, we'll grant you the rest."
>mfw don't know what the fuck that means
>mfw to stupid too understand philosophy

>>9015977
YOU.
CAN'T.
NO.
NUFFIN.

And the practicing Catholic Thomist Anscombe is the one who understands my work the best.

Wittgenstein goes into the trash along with the sperglords Kierkegaard, Hegel and Kant.

>>9016985

haha idiot

>>9016985
Wait!

Don't go!

If you look there is an astericks which points to a published work by G. E. Moore entitled "Proof of an external World".

Read the Wikipedia page on that.

Wittgenstein is replying to G. E. Moore's argument against Skeptics by saying that Moore is providing the incorrect argument or rather, he is committing the same problem in his work.

Don't give up!

>>9016996
John Snow detected

>>9016996
You have to understand the time he was living in. He was surrounded by Logical Positivists.

Did you read Russell's introduction to the Tractatus? He clearly didn't understand it which is why Wittgenstein tried very hard to get it removed from future publications.

Wittgenstein was right, people in his time didn't get him.

>>9017200
>Wittgenstein is replying to G. E. Moore's argument against Skeptics by saying that Moore is providing the incorrect argument or rather, he is committing the same problem in his work.
How so? I haven't read Wittgenstein but I read Moore's article and the phrase you are quoting seems to agree with his point against idealism and harcdcore skeptics

>>9017403
Ok you can give up now.

>>9017403
It's too difficult to explain but he is attacking Moore's tendency towards proof and contradicting the skeptic's argument by applying his own model of certainty.

That is to say, Wittgenstein wants us to recognise that we can only speak *of* the facts themselves.

That is to say, justification comes to an end and we must pass to description.

Moore may turn the skeptic's argument on its head and even, indeed, turn their argument from modus ponens to modus tollens but he is in effect still being inconsiderate of our language game and its historicity.

I must collect my thoughts as it has been some time.

If you would like to discuss this further, simply reply.

>>9015977
Because philosophy is for NEETs