Did he actually bring anything new to the table other than platitudes

>>9278510
How about you read him and find out you charlatan.

A lot, but what will happen ITT when people far below his intelligence try to dissect him is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

>>9278513
>>9278522

Come on guys. OP's question is legit, usually 1 anon out of 10 gives a decent reply, however when it's about Wittgenstein, nobody does. EVER.

>>9278513
>>9278522
>preventive excuses
>go read X pleb
>ure dumb
>analytic retards present their compelling arguments

>>9278522
Stop spamming this meme

>judging philosophers by their writings rather than their looks

>>9278510
Wittgenstein's profundity only makes sense in the context of early analytic philosophy, which you clearly have no knowledge of

>>9278510
If he, and specifically the private language argument is right, all analytic philosophy is wrong.

I'd say that counts as "adding something to the table"

File: J. L.jpg (74KB, 374x421px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 374x421px

>>9278618
aren't you forgetting someone

>>9278626
what about him?

>>9278637
how would the private language argument make him wrong

>>9278642
his theory of speech acts would be wrong simply by virtue of being a philosophical theory

>>9278652
but the private language argument is a philosophical theory

>>9278657
no it isn't ...

you don't understand Wittgenstein if you don't understand his attitude towards theories in philosophy

>>9278663
Check your logic here mate.

>>9278677
>what did he mean by this

>>9278522
I am currently coining a new term called the "Dunning-Kruger-Effect effect", that describes people mistakenly using the existence of the Dunning-Kruger effect as a substitute for an argument

I have bought most of our loved Witts' works at discount price, but I'm still barely out of the greeks on philosophy.

What should I read before I tackle him?

>>9278683
Outside of your argument about private language. You are saying that the argument about private language isn't a philosophical theory because W was hostile toward theories in philosophy.

>>9278698
you can read him ez, especially PI. Taractus is hard but rz if you just think hard tvh

>>9278663

YOU GOTTA CLIMB THE LADDER BEFORE YOU KICK IT OVER

LET THE FLY OUTTA THE BOTTLE

PHILOSOPHY IS THERAPY FOR PHILOSOPHY

ERGO I'LL LET YOU DRAW THE NECESSARY CONCLUSION FROM THAT.

>>9278710
Not even people who dislike Witty say that the private language argument is itself a theory, even simply for the reason that arguments aren't theories ...

You could hold the view that Witty had theories despite stating explicitly multiple times that they were bullshit and that the whole point of his late work was to offer a different way of thinking, but you'd either have to read him so shallowly as to ignore this contradiction entirely, or give a substantial argument for how it qualifies as a theory. You can't just assume he has a theory because philosophers in general usually do.

>>9278536
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

>>9278536
OP's question is pretty bullshit though. He clearly hasn't read a fucking word. Read him, then you can ask questions.

>>9278698
I'm reading Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein right now and its really informative. Maybe not the best explanation of his work but you get a good sense of the context of his ideas.

>>9278822
I read Witt and think that pretty much is Witt's most important conclusion. He just makes the conclusion quite rigorously.

>>9278742
>contradiction