Can someone help me comprehend this response? Asked some question

>This can surely be observed hitherto all the philosophical interventions and theories conceived- Wittgenstein, some often proclaim that his expertise limited his acroamatic ideas and propositions, restricted his supposition of claims when he was writing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It showed an exemplary of a well-refined, impregnable work. The problem here is that his work showed great grasp of linguistics, pragmatics, semantics and formal logic. His mastery in epistemology and etymology is indubitable. Look closely, and you’ll realise that his book did all the justice that epistemology, etymology, linguistic relativism has to offer. In which Descartes and Bertrand Russell probably arrived at before. This book took a step to redefine and polish all the definitions available in the field, but it seems his knowledge impacted on his ability to be an exemplar, a revolutionist. This further interprets that “experts” differ from “intelligence” since the usage and comprehension of such skills needs one to show clues of “genius”. We know that Wittgenstein possesses all these knowledge, but did he apply it to make it rather palpable, his veracity deterred his ability to express “genius? That further says that “genius” cannot be related to “expertise”.

>To further extrapolate on my statements, I would need to talk about the philosophy of David Hume, Arthur Schopenhauer and more Immanuel Kant, perhaps Friedrich Nietzsche as well.. But I’ll leave that for another day, for some rationalism, the preponderance of the argument is much more vast than my answer can consist of. I cannot truly define what “intelligence” means, nor can I articulate upon what the societal norms and communal prejudice seek and desire from said “intelligence”. This cannot be done, there is no agreeable or conspicuous idea we can follow, for above we see a perfectly tangible and discernible conception that can be grasped with ease. Hindmost lays all the recherche concepts that we as humans, has yet to unravel. Sui generis. Quasi, pseudo and ostensible truth that it is.

>“Primum est, ex eo quod mens humana in se conversa non percipiat aliud se esse quàm rem cogitantem, non sequi ejus naturam sive essentiam in eo tantùm consistere, quod sit res cogitans, ita ut vox tantùm caetera omnia excludat quae forte etiam dici possent ad animae naturam pertinere. Cui objectioni respondeo me etiam ibi noluisse illa excludere in ordine ad ipsam rei veritatem (de quâ scilicet tunc non agebam), sed dumtaxat in ordine ad meam perceptionem, adeo ut sensus esset me nihil plane cognoscere quod ad essentiam meam scirem pertinere, praeterquam quod essem res cogitans, sive res habens in se facultatem cogitandi. In sequentibus autem ostendam quo pacto, ex eo quod nihil aliud ad essentiam meam pertinere cognoscam, sequatur nihil etiam aliud revera ad illam pertinere.

>Alterum est, ex eo quod ideam rei me perfectioris in me habeam, non sequi ipsam ideam esse me perfectiorem, & multo minùs illud quod per istam ideam repraesentatur existere. Sed respondeo hîc subesse aequivocationem in voce ideae: sumi enim potest vel materialiter, pro operatione intellectûs, quo sensu me perfectior dici nequit, vel objective, pro re per istam operationem repraesentatâ, quae res, etsi non supponatur extra intellectum existere, potest tamen me esse perfectior ratione suae essentiae. Quomodo verò, ex hoc solo quod rei me perfectioris idea in me sit, sequatur illam rem revera existere, fuse in sequentibus exponetur.” From Meditations on First Philosophy. (This time, Descartes did know some philosophy.)

>>9699178
psued

>>9699277
Castigate charlatan!

literally the definition for pseud. this is what he meant anon:
>"i cannot truly define what intelligence means" but i can throw some really cool names so you know that i am cool and hip

>>9699290
Pseid

File: 1831_schlesinger_philosoph_georg_friedrich_wilhelm_hegel12.jpg (278KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 650x650px

>This is what Kant thought intelligence was
>Wittgenstien doesn't fit into it
>If I want to really want to explain this simple concept of Kant's definition I'd have to go into *name drops philosophers* but ha ha I don't have time for that
>I couldn't articulate the vast incomprehensible definition of intelligence, it's too much for words ha ha
>Dumps latin Descartes even though the rest of his post is english
Holy...

H E W P O S T I N G