/lit/ - Literature

I need a good and clear introduction for this guy. What should i read first?

>>15669332
>>15669336
Unsystematicity and change is the sign of a good philosopher

anarcho primitivism?

>The laws of science are not logical laws, nor are they empirical observations. Rather, they constitute an interpretive method, by means of which we can more accurately describe reality. Science is ultimately descriptive, not explanatory.

>There is no perspective external to the world from which we can talk about the world or its contents generally. Thus, statements of value (as we find in ethics or aesthetics) are nonsense, since they evaluate the world as a whole. The feeling of life as a limited whole is what Wittgenstein calls "the mystical."

>The only correct method in philosophy is to remain silent about philosophical questions, and to point out to anyone who tries to talk philosophy that he or she is talking nonsense. The propositions of the Tractatus themselves make general statements about the nature of the world, and so they too are nonsense. They should serve only as a ladder to be climbed and then discarded. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"

Or is this just some kind of subversive horseshit?

>>15399978
>>15399989
Get out, both of you.

>Noooo you cannot discover the true nature of reality

>You're just doing Heckin language games

And here is the optional super boss that nobody has ever managed to beat.

Stop using language.

>>13652481
I am the fuckin world
you are nothing but another concentric circle to me

>tfw programmer
>start reading Wittgenstein
>holy shit this guy makes a lot of sense

I want to get more into Analytic Philosophy. Any recs?

>"you cannot talk about logic in a common language, as it is study of symbols and sentences and not of real-life situations"
>proceed to talk about logic in common language anyway xD

who cares? nietzsche wrote some words together that meant absolutely nothing.

>>10626311
ELI5:

Nigger Kant was pissed at the other bearded guys. He thought they're just wannabe smart guys who might as well suck their own dicks. To Kant their philosophy was nonscientific speculation (metaphysic) - but nigger Kant wanted to do it right.

But he could just do it, because before writing smart shit you actually have to understand what's "smart" and whats not. So his approach is one that starts with the things you're able to know (epistemology).

He starts with stating that you have (((sense))) and (((reason))) to get to know stuff. And then he starts calling the stuff you "get to know" (((a posteriori))).

Another big word is (((a priori))): meaning things that you "always" knew, like the law of *shit can't be like X and not like X at the same time*...

The goal in Critique of Pure Reason is to "scientifically" decide >whether< you're able to infer smart new stuff by what you already know a priori. This new stuff he calls (((synthetic shit a priori))).

Now Kant doesn't actually get to do the smart stuff (scientific philosophy) that he see's lacking with his colleagues, instead he thinks that he gave use the right initial toolset by analysing what we're able know. Therefore he calls his doing (((transcendental))) because it's the precondition for the actual thing.

just shut the fuck up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident

wtf I hate wittgenstein now

>mom found the incest story

I want to understand wittgeinstein. Please recommend books that can help me.

Have you ever seen anyone as woke as fuck as this dude?

>Linguist
>Only spoke one language
>Rarely spoke anyway

https://join.skype.com/t4WVGGenGLHh

>>8575049
>It proves communism is about making everyone poor.
>linguistic platonism

>>8560543
no

>>8447330
>value
>impact
>society
kek.

https://join.skype.com/AQOCPcydbBEj

1 HOL UP HOL UP
1.1 *smacks lips*
1.2 YOU BE SAYIN
1.2.1 *smacks children*
1.2.2 WE SUM FINNA UH...
1.3 *smacks Karl Popper*