What am I supposed to take take away from this thing, anyway?

https://www.docdroid.net/ckStBXi/wittgenstein-guide.pdf.html#page=20

If you cannot understand its significance you have low intelligence & ability.

I'm sorry.

>>9289493
It doesn't get DEEP DUUUUUUDE until the end

>>9289533
Do you not have a brain of your own? Anyon can start shitting out the links
>>9289542
You're welcome to enlighten me

>>9289493
Philosophy is about the question, not the proof. You failed philosophy, and embarrassed yourself in front of all the Internet doing so.

>>9289533
>>9289542
>>9289588

Not OP, but you suck, guys. Threads about Hegel or Heidegger have lead to very good, short yet accurate rundowns by smart anons. As long as Wittgenstein fans are not able to provide anything with actual content, OP has the right to despise Wittgenstein. You just sound like you just don't wanna admit there's nothing to say.

>>9289493
>What am I supposed to take away from this thing
Found the problem: you're not very smart, I'm sorry to say.

>>9289646
So, is Wittgenstein /lit/s 2DEEP4U hipster darling?

>>9289493
>dude philosophy aint shit lmao
>writes philosophy
He is a retard.

>>9289621
>fans

>>9289621
> You just sound like you just don't wanna admit there's nothing to say.
Nice.

>>9289493
>I honestly can't see anyone but stick-in-the-ass logicians finding any of it interesting
>Not realizing the Wittgenstein was not only an excellent philosopher of language (albeit not really a logician), but also a profound mystic

Read the last 5 pages or so again. The best part of the book isn't it's account of language or logic, but rather its account of the metaphysical and epistemological limitations of representation in general (and thus both language and human subjectivity), and the consequences of these limitation for an ethical, aesthetic, and mystical understanding of the world.

>>9289493
Read academic secondary literature, don't come to /lit/ for this. Try Cora Diamond, David Pears, Mounce, or Warren Goldfarb. Read Hacker if you want to be wrong.

>>9289588
>embarrassed yourself in front of all the Internet

Kek I'm assuming the second sentence was somewhat ironic or satirical despite nevertheless expressing a genuine sentiment towards OP. If not, it's some bretty amusing autism.

>>9290633
I didn't read the whole thing, as stated above (not sure I actually want to move to P.5 and further). I'd agree on you calling him a 'mystic', but not in a good sense. For someone so obsessed with clarity, he sure enjoys making vague statements, and place them right next to basic bitch logical functions, which feels dishonest and biased, since logic and metaphysics are conceived in entirely different fashion.
So far his argument, as I see it, boils down to the following:
- the world is made of simple, describable and comprehensible propositions, that only have the quality of being indivisible (atomic), true or false.
Wittgenstein never makes an example, or gives a method to reducing complex ideas to their basic parts, so the argument is at best contentious
- complex propositions must be expressed through simple ones, HENCE talking about abstract values (such as life, God, beauty etc) is impossible, so fuck you metaphysics
- sense (meaning) of any proposition is emergent from the proposition itself, HENCE logical forms do not exist separately, so fuck you logic

I know I'm being simple, but none of it feels convincing anyway. He also seems to subscribe to whorfianism (language limits thought) which is laughable.

>>9290750
Regarding the presence of Whorfianism in the Tractatus, you're somewhat misunderstanding his use of the term language (which is understandable, especially if your not familiar with mathematical logic or Wittgenstein "Notebooks"). He doesn't mean language in the conventional sense, but again, "representation" broadly speaking. Thus he's not making the claim that human thought is limited by or to language or linguistic constructions. Rather he's making an analogy between language and "concepts" in the sense that both are ontologically characterizable as representations, and as such are limited in similar ways insofar as they're both are representations. I.e. he's not saying that thought is limited by the capacities of natural human language, but rather that, insofar as thought is representational, it exhibits all the inherent limits of any representational system (i.e. what he calls a "language") in general - for example, he would claim that thought cannot "picture" or represent its own limits, i.e. one cannot form in though a picture of what it is for something to be unthinkable (whether or not his assumptions are correct is one question, but his conclusions on these matter are clearly undeniable).

>>9289493
>4 propositions

lol

>>9289548
wrong

>>9289556
Read the secondary books in the link and you will understand it, pleb.