/lit/ - Literature

>Wittgenstein remarked to Elizabeth Anscombe (presumably an honorary man) 'Thank God we have got rid of the women!' on realising that there were no female students left in the class.
Anscombe is the ONLY female philosopher

Was Wittgenstein's answer at the end really mysticism? Essentially, "just believe bro lol"?

Please tell me that I'm mistaken /lit/

>“Wittgenstein’s correspondence with Pattison consists almost entirely of ‘nonsense’. In nearly every letter he makes some use of the English adjective ‘bloody’, which, for some reason, he found inexhaustibly funny. He would often begin his letters ‘Dear Old Blood’ and end them ‘Yours bloodily’ or ‘Yours in bloodiness’. Pattisson would send him photographs cut out from magazines, which he called his ‘paintings’, and to which Wittgenstein would respond with exaggeratedly solemn appreciation: ‘I would have known it to be a Pattison immediately without the signature. There is that bloodiness in it which has never before been expressed by the brush.’ In reply, Wittgenstein would send ‘portraits’, photogrphs of distinguished looking middle-aged men, ripped out of newspaper advertisements for self-improvement courses. ‘My latest photo’, he announced, enclosing one such picture. ‘The previous one expressed fatherly kindness only; this one expresses triumph’.”

>"Throughout the correspondence there is a gentle ridicule of the language of the advertiser, the absurdity of the style being invoked simply by using it as though it were the normal way for two friends to write to each other. Sending Wittgenstein a (genuine) photograph of himself, Pattisson writes on the back: 'On the other side is pictured one of our 47/6 suits.' 'Somehow or the other, Wittgenstein writes at the end of one letter, 'one instinctively feels that Two Steeples No. 83 Quality Sock is a real man's sock. It's a sock of taste - dressy, fashionable, comfortable.'"

>>9873089
Reminds me of someone

>>7445974
>Some of the jokes contained in Wittgenstein's letters to Pattisson are, indeed, astonishingly feeble. Enclosing an address that ends 'W.C.1', he draws an arrow to the 'W.C.' and writes: 'This doesn't mean "Lavatory".' And on the back of a postcard of Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, he writes: 'If I remember rightly this Cathedral was built, partly at least, by the Normans. Of course, it's a long time ago & my memory isn't what it was then.'

>>7133745
>>7133745

You are playing chess in a coffee shop with another good chess player. You are visibly invested in the game, grimacing, wringing your hands, and so is your friend, the good chess player. A guy sidles up, "may I play the winner?" he says. You both agree. You finish the game, and you win. He sits down opposite from you. For his first move, you let him move first as he is a new player, he moves a pawn all the way to your front row. He takes a pawn.
"What are you doing?" you ask.
"We're playing fairy chess," he says.
"What are the rules?" you ask.
"You may move in whatever way allows you to win."
"But we're not playing chess, then" you object.
"I'm liberating you," he says, "you should feel joy. You will be able to win now. Before you were so uncomfortable, as was your opponent."
"But, I," you say, astounded, "if it doesn't have rules, there's no game."
"No, there is a game. The game so far has been defined by what you could not do, I have chosen now to define it by what you can do."
"That's not chess," you say.
"Bigot," he says, moving another pawn, jumping it, taking your king, "I win. Next player?"

>>7114264
>It is what human beings say that is true and false; and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.
You need to do your homework kiddo.

>>6723790
not even close

>>6576860
The answer is that they're both the same because they both deal with value. We can't speak of them because we can only speak facts. However he changed his mind on this later in the Investigations.

>>6346605
>Is metaphysics possible?
No

Which philosophers and writers did WIttgenstein like?

Which philosophers and writers did Wittgenstein dislike?

"Hegel seems to me to be always wanting to say that things which look different are really the same. Whereas my interest is in showing that things which look the same are really different"

Are things which look different the same or are things which look the same different?

Honestly

>>5853217
Use.