So I keep seeing this book posted...

>>9087529
what does he mean by 'we'll grant you all the rest'?

>>9087529

I have about eighty per cent confidence that this suite of OPs over the past couple months are a bot running somewhere, which has picked up on "Wittgenstein" on this board, autonomously decided to pick a work that had not been discussed much, and is measuring its ability to shape board interest in the work through repetition.

>>9087559
Read the rest of the book and it'll make sense.

Hint: He's speaking about the public linguistic community's ability to "grant you all the rest".

>>9087560
>I have about eighty per cent confidence that this suite of OPs over the past couple months are a bot running somewhere,


I'm not OP. Just a guy who saw this posted and wanted to post about it! It's really amazing!

Yeah I agree OP, definitely the greatest book ever written imho

>>9087529
>It COMPLETELY underpins and eradicates everything you used to believe

Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that t underpins and eradicates.

>>9087529
never read it, anon

but happy for you

>>9089563
You have to read it!

>>9089600
Thanks a lot!

>>9089608
exprentulence

>>9089608
>It COMPLETELY underpins and eradicates everything you used to believe
Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.
>You have to read it!

Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.

Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.

Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.

Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.

Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.

Name one thing. What is one thing the average person, or you, (name two or three if you want and can) that it underpins and eradicates.

>>9087529
>It COMPLETELY underpins and eradicates everything you used to believe.

What are some examples OP?

>>9089940
>>9089996
Sorry but you'll have to read it and the previous material to get it.

I can't speak about it because once you read it, you realise a lot of things but after you realise them, you can no longer speak about them. Only be comforted in having climbed the ladder. I have kicked the ladder away and now rest on the shoulders of giants.

>>9089940
>people going insane over others not being able to discuss the book properly and at lengt

Good, glad to see the board culture is improving. That is a huge problem.

>>9089998
Also, let me see if I can get a get

>>9090002
>That is a huge problem.

This book is the book that ends all books, friend.

Once you read it, you can't speak about it, only recommend it.

>>9090005
Stop trivializing something very important, retard.

>>9090013
>Stop trivializing something very important

Oh, believe me. This book is very important. It has changed everything I believe.

>say it's really hard to refute its points
>can't explain any of its points

>>9090019
Sorry, friend but you can't get it until you read it all alone in quiet after having read the pre-requisites which are 'Proof of an External World' and 'A Defence of Common Sense' by Moore.

If you want to read the greatest book ever written then just side aside a couple of hours.

I too was like you until I chose to read the OP.

>>9090024
my god you are retarded lol

>>9090030
That's a reddit response if I've ever seen one.

>>9090030
i understand your dejection but that is truly not a response for this board desu lol

>>9090024
>Posts something
>Refuses to talk about it
>Posts anyways

>>9090055
How can we talk about it if you haven't read it?

You won't be able to understand my interpretation or understanding because you will be unable to understand the nuances of what I say.

Read the book and the prerequisites and open your mind, brother.

>>9090055
shut up already and let this thread die

>>9090062
Already did...

>>9090066
Then you know as I do, brother, then you know as I do...

>>9090070
The whole concept of grammatical propositions it's sketchy af.

>>9090070
Also... The argument against the skeptic doubt it's insufficient, there's been a lot said about it already...

>>9090066
its basically the attempt to make an axiomatic frame out of language. Hard and noble task, but he didn't quite make it

>>9090176
Nice try, friend, nice try...

>>9090180
>its basically the attempt to make an axiomatic frame out of language. Hard and noble task, but he didn't quite make it

WRONG

FUCK OFF, YOU DIDN'T GET IT.

You seriously didn't get it. That is NOT what he is doing.

>>9090176
>not saying how its insufficient

>>9090186
>Read the book and the prerequisites and open your mind, brother.

>>9090187
Don't listen to him.

Wittgenstein is NOT advocating an axiomatic form of language. That poster is thinking of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus which Wittgenstein wrote during WWI but rejected (debated hotly) in his later years.

He is NOT doing that.

Wittgenstein is criticising both Moore AND the skeptics.

>>9090192
ya he is

>>9090197
Stop shitposting and go away!!!

>>9090205
na ty
wittgenstein is dumb!!!1!!!1one!!

>>9089998
what previous material?

>>9090322
"Proof of an External World" and "A Defence of Common Sense" both by G. E. Moore

Moore wrote those two works (very short) in response to Skeptics.

Wittgenstein wrote "On Certainty" in response to both skeptics and Moore's two books.

>>9090329
Which skeptics? It doesnt seem like it would make much sense to only read one of the people he is replying to.

>>9090421
Moore was attacking Skepticism in general.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Other_formulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defence_of_Common_Sense
http://www.ditext.com/moore/common-sense.html

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/ana/MooreProof.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty
https://web.archive.org/web/20051210213153/http://budni.by.ru/oncertainty.html


Skepticism has a long history so it would not be conducive for me to explain in its entirety what he was attacking. All I can do is provide the links above in that exact order from top to bottom. They should be sufficient enough in giving you an understanding to tackle 'On Certainty'. If you still have trouble, I suggest reading 'Philosophical Investigations' in order to understand the nuances of Wittgenstein's thoughts.

>>9090447
Where would Hume or Sextus Empiricus fall into this?

Hume doesn't necessarily fall into 'On Certainty' but he does fall into Skepticism and 'Philosophical Investigations' (to a certain extent). Saul Kripke published a book on a particular passage of Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations' where he claimed Wittgenstein pointed out a 'Rule-Following Paradox'. A sort of 'Linguistic Problem of Induction'. I have provided some links below including a link to an excellent short video series on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#Induction_and_causation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein_on_Rules_and_Private_Language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzF-zf4F5yM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdAu_JR_mO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pws90aiKr80


Wittgenstein (in my opinion and of many others) is NOT a skeptic (I do believe he brings up the rule-following paradox). 'On Certainty' to an extent displays that he is not. Wittgenstein (I believe) is criticising both Moore and Skeptics alike. That is to say, he is explaining how both groups are acting upon the same bewitchment, that being the bewitchment of Philosophy.

>>9090457
forgot to link
>>9090474

>>9090474
Thanks, which work provides the best example of a skeptics argument?

What are the best criticisms of Wittgenstien

>>9090536
Well, scepticism has a long history. Perhaps you should read 'Meditations' by Descartes followed by 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' by David Hume.

Before reading those, you should probably read 'Scepticism: A Very Short Introduction' by Oxford University Press.

I would highly recommend Hume, he is the most intelligent of 'skeptics' but he does offer a skeptical solution. I don't like Descartes although he is considered the founder of 'Modern' philosophy.


With regards to Wittgenstein, I must say, I have yet to find someone who adequately criticises him. The people who are most famous for doing so are 'Ernest Gellner' in his book 'Words and Things' and an assortment of others. Try the criticism section of Wikipedia or look at profiles of so-called 'New Wittgensteinians', click on their profiles and look at the criticism section.

>>9091635
>he is the most intelligent of 'skeptics' but he does offer a skeptical solution
what is his skeptic solution, and is that video you posted about the 'rule following paradox'? I will check it out now to find out, but if its not, can you say anything about that?

>>9091871
Saul Kripke offers a skeptical solution to the paradox he believes exists which is sort of related to Hume but is about language and Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations'

Hume's solution is to a problem he discovered, that is the problem of induction. You should read the text itself and the complementary sparknotes of 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'.

>>9092314
Thanks, will do, but can you just describe the paradox?

>>9090024
your really shit at convincing others of things

>>9090186
go try sticking your dick in your own anus you religious fanatic scum!

>>9092362
It's better if you just read the articles I linked in order and the videos.

>>9091635
Thanks, was planning on tackling Hume before all of this. Should I read the treatise first?

>>9092820
The treatise contain two other works which are an attack on religion and another one I can't remember including the enquiry.

'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' is an updated version of the one that appears in the Treatise so read the updated version.

File: 1469903500219.jpg (72KB, 360x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 360x600px

>muh words

>>9092900
wittgenstein is my ideology

>>9092934
same

OP: You realize underpins means to support something, rather than to undermine something, right? Right? Uhhh. . . .

>>9092967
The use of Underpin in the OP means an action, to underpin and THEN to eradicate, retard

File: Wittgenstein-Quietist-Mystic.png (139KB, 830x334px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 830x334px

>>6.4 All propositions are of equal value.
>yet not treating them as a singularity (illogical: distinct things cannot be ‘equal’ or ‘singular’)
>>6.41-2
>using the words 'sense', 'world', 'value', .. as if they refer to transcendental (there is nothing beyond the universe by definition) subjects
>>6.42
>[X] is transcendental (again)
Wouldn't Wittgenstein like to think?

A comprehensive history of "analytic philosophy".
>1. All philosophy has been analytic, from the beginning of philosophy (quite simply because that's what all philosophy, indeed all thought, consists of: analysis).
>2. Nietzsche arrives on the scene. Anglo-Saxons do not understand his analysis, ergo it is not analysis. Also, he made fun of them repeatedly for not being able to understand him. This at least they understood.
>3. Anglo-Saxons: "Screw the priggish continentals: We will make our OWN philosophy." (= "The continentals are mean to us, so we won't play with them anymore.")
>4. Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".
>5. No one pays attention to the Anglo-Saxons' illegible rubbish, while book sales and star status of the continentals (many of whom are charlatans indeed but at least not boring) are soaring.
>6. Finally Rorty turns around and proclaims the end of "analytic philosophy". "I wish I'd read less of our autistic bullshit and more novels instead."
>7. According to the Anglo-Saxons, then, novels are the culmination and ultimate expression of philosophy.
>8. And that's where Anglo-Saxon "analytic philosophy" stands to this day. Nothing more than a gigantic reaction movement to Nietzsche calling them names and making fun of them.

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.

>>9093114
>Actually quoting the Tractatus which Wittgenstein rejected


Embarrassing rebuttal.

>>9093114
Can you distill this post into any point/s you made in it? I dont know what you are saying, to me, trying to say (possibly successfully: it seems there may be something interesting here, but I dont know what you are trying to get at).