Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

Wiggy is like babby's first mindfuck

his ideas are so shallow and boring, and that's when he isn't playing pointless language games

all philosophical problems are not at bottom linguistic problems

>>9317426
No. That was his later thinking of Language Games after the Tractatus, but when he said that all philosophical problems are due to inherent logic of our language, and that they are unsolvable, he totally hit the nail on the head.

>>9317424
>Pro-tip: you can't.
We could if you gave an accurate list of all the philosophy you've read. Come on. You know it wouldn't be long.

>>9317455
hahahhaa. I've enjoyed philosophy since I were a kid. I've read Kant, Kierkegaard, Russel, Hume and most (not all) the greeks.

File: WIN_20170331_015601.jpg (107KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1280x720px

>>9317455
This is the box where I keep all my philosophy books.

>70 pages of autistic math formulas just to express a simple idea:
>YOU CANT KNOW NUFFIN

File: The Truth.png (1MB, 902x1384px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 902x1384px

THIS IS THE TRUTH!

>>9317501
>>9317464
>/lit/ reads the same 5 philosophers endlessly

>>9317504
I know some more obscure ones, but which are of the same merit, like Gottlob Frege, A.J Ayers, A.C. Crayling, Daisetsu Suzuki, Hillary Putnam, Alfred North Whitehead and others.

>>9317501
Witty man stated that Kierkegaard was too deep for him

>>9317509
anon, he was only being humble...

>>9317474
>box

Dunno man, the whole of Tractatus just felt like reductionism 101. Like, I get it, all of Logic can be effectively represented as a series of negations applied to the same set of propositions, what of it?
Ever since presocratics people already suspected that objects and ideas can be reduced and trivilialized to simple atoms, it's not exactly a new thing to say. Not to mention that the scientific advancement of the 20th centry completely blew away all Wittgenstein's ideas as the simplest of objects turned out to operate with entirely different set of rules.

File: hqdefault.jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

can we please move analytic philosophy into its hegelian phase now?

>>9317544
>>Not to mention that the scientific advancement of the 20th century completely blew away all Wittgenstein's ideas as the simplest of objects turned out to operate with entirely different set of rules.

You are missing the point. The objective that the book set out to do was to make the reader "climb up the stairs and throw it away after doing it", Only to see the world in a new light afterwards. Wittgenstein himself recognises this and knows that all his propositions are in a way, non-sensical and impossible to prove. Its whole objective was to make a sort of philosophical logico system to see the world in a different way. And it is something that no other book can achieve in the same way.

>>9317424
Did you print this out yourself?

>>9317544
and by the way, what are those scientific advancements that contradict the Tractatus, exactly?
>>9317571
Yeah, I did. I print it myself because I live in the third world and it is cheaper to just print books like a fucking poorfag. I also print multiple copies that I give to my friends and professors.

>>9317576
kek, I respect it anon

>>9317464

read sextus empricus and tell me the skeptics didn't reach the same conclusions as ol' wiggy two thousand years before his time

>>9317569
yet you're still carrying it around like a dweeb

>>9317611
>sextus empricus
nah, dude. Reading the greeks again would drive me mad.

File: drake-hotline-bling-jacket-moncler-1-00.jpg (45KB, 766x460px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 766x460px

Just for the love of Christ, don't read any continental philosophy, that is shit. Analytical will always win, folks. It's much better than pseud french faggots.

>>9317424
Wittgenstein himself denounced it later in life. Do you need any more to show it's not?

>>9317636
Define continental and analytical

>>9317464

That sums it up pretty much. Dunno if you were holding the book upside down when reading Kant, but throwing the name of Russell in this sentence clearly means you're not into philosophy.

Question: what does he mean by the case, and by objects?

File: HD_more youknow.jpg (4KB, 160x90px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 160x90px

>>9317424
Because Wittgenstein himself realized what a mess Tractatus was.

Witty made a fallacious supposition that everything in the world must be made of unique facts. From that principle, he derived a work called Tractatus where he smugly derided logic and philosophy as meaningless exercises.

Later in life, Wittgenstein realised how fucking stupid his ideas actually were but was too embarrassed and ashamed to publish his second book because he knew that it would make him a laughing stock

File: getonmylevel.jpg (440KB, 902x2136px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 902x2136px

>>9317501
fixed

I really want to read this and get into Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Hegel, and some other philosophers because I find their ideas interesting. Do I really need to start with the Greeks and progress all the way up to modern philosophy and read a shit ton of secondary texts, or can I just dive into it and read what I find interesting, figuring out what's going on after a long enough time immersed in it all?

>>9319368
Aristotle, Plato and Socrates will help you a lot since they're basics 101 to which the later guys comment upon in one way or another. They invented a bunch of terms and dialogues that are used today. Nietzsche is a great, easy writer to get into without prior reading, but even with him the background of older writers will help you to get more out of his writings.
You will not get anything useful out of Hegel without context of time and history of what he writes about (philosophy, ideas). Go ahead and try but unless you have the super smarts..

>>9317501
Who's between Kunt and Kirk?

>>9319412
Frege.

>>9319295
>>9317501
I know these images are not meant to be taken seriously but don't dump Nietzsche with Sartre you fucking illiterate mongols.

>>9319426
I thought it was Husserl because they look the same desu

>The only necessity that exists is logical necessity.
Why?

>>9317636
The divide is a fraud.

>>9320411
Barely

>>9319408
What should one read of the Greeks? All of their works? Is there a pic of the best and only Greek books to read to provide a great preliminary background?

>>9317424

>a right hand glove could be put on the left hand if it could be turned round in 4 dimensional space

>>9320802
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

>>9317464
>>9317508
>only reads analytic
ABORT

I prefer Sellars and Carnap to Wittgenstein, but to be honest prefer late 20th century cognitive science over logical empiricism

>>9321320
>science
fuck off STEMshitter

>>9321333
ah the philosophical illiteracy meme

>>9321363
>illiteracy
STEMshit isn't philosophy.

Philosophy is also awful.

>>9317508
>Crayling
jajaja

>>9317616
They're the masterworks by which everything else is the fucking footnote. You said you read Whitehead, have you not learned anything, homo?

>>9321401
Wrong, stop shitposting you disgusting helenophile.

>>9317424
Not to burst anyone's bubble but weren't the eastern mystics aware that language was the final barrier to reality like a couple thousand years ago?

'The Dao that can be uttered is not the eternal Dao' ?

>>9321410
>hellenophile
Get of my board and fucking get HOOKED ON PHONICS NEEERD!

>>9321417
Not to burst your bubble but no one really thinks that language is the final barrier to anything, nigga gotta read your phenomenology

>>9321428
>but no one really thinks that language is the final barrier to anything

Have you read a book on philosophy in the western canon before?

>>9321434
yeah, many of them. i'm speaking currently, in terms of contemporary philosophy, which is why I used the present tense "thinks" rather than the past tense "thought".

>>9321446
Yes, due largely in part to the west recently gaining interest into eastern thought. My point is that the insights Witt offers aren't exactly new. See the Vedantic tradition, for instance.

>>9321469
Yeah, I only took gripe with your usage of the word "aware" which presents that eastern tradition as fact, when Sellars' Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind pretty much defeated that concept

>>9321482
I see

Maths, languages formal or not, are a safe space of coherence created by normies once they whine that what they call reality is not enough coherent to them.
Math is the step beyond the one done by normies with their little legal rules, justifying them from what they experience, by some rationality, common sense, necessity and other spooks like progress (and whine when they see that most people do not care about their little rules even if the first people manage to enforce them)
Then they get butthurt when some guy not spooked about all these spooks recall them that all these people is projecting lots of feelings and fantasies or just create other spooky formal languages after the same intention.
Of course, these normies create an idea of ''accuracy of my formal language with what I experience'' because deep down people know that their little inferences are just the result of their imagination, so they crave some spook called ''non-human objective third party '' which would make everybody agree on anything while shitting on empiricism, because ''my senses dupe me since the straw bends in water, but not in the air, thank ???? for giving the faculty of reason I can totally see the real reality now''.

>>9320432
3.02
A thought contains the possibility of the situation of which it is the thought. What is thinkable is possible too.
3.03
Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically.
3.031
It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an ‘illogical’ world would look like.
3.032
It is as impossible to represent in language anything that ‘contradicts logic’ as it is in geometry to represent by its co-ordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the co-ordinates of a point that does not exist.
3.0321
Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot.

>>9320966
I'm not clicking that, but thanks potentially pernicious friend.

File: cap.png (211KB, 2116x990px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 2116x990px

>>9321785
just a gdoc made by someone on here