/lit/ - Literature

>>18699486
My plan? Do nothing. I like to call this, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

>hm yes let me describe the limits of the describable
What was he thinking?

Language is use. If a person is called a woman then they are one. Internal identity and such doesn't matter, inner feelings don't matter, biology doesn't matter. We're talking about the meaning of words, and if we're being descriptive, trans women who pass are women. Just like the word sadness refers not the internal sensation of sadness but the outwardly demonstrable public behavior, Women does not refer to anything beyond the performance and appearance needed to be socially recognized as a Woman. Simple.

I understand the private language argument to be saying that because in a private language which refers only to internal sensations, there is no social aspect, there is no criterion for correctness beyond memory and thus no difference between being in accord with a rule and believing yourself to be in accordance with it, thus making a private language impossible.

My question is this : The argument on its face seems to be attacking the idea of following a rule privately, but clearly Wittgenstein would accept other examples of private rule following. Imagine a single final speaker of a otherwise dead language. This is not a private language, as it refers to public objects and is thus in principle translatable. Would Wittgenstein say that this impossible, as there is no difference for the speaker between actually being in accord with the rules of the dead language and believing oneself to be in accord with it? Or what about something more simple? Instead of red, from now on I will say "gilgorp" in its place. This is surely a private rule that I can clearly follow on my own without any external criterion for correctness.

The only difference between the dead language speaker or the red-reassignment is that I can in principle define a word as equivalent to a either a public object or another word. So, clearly, I must be able to privately follow a rule if the referent of my definitions is a public object or another word, but NOT if the referent is a private sensation only I have access to. Why?

I think I must have misunderstood the argument in some capacity, because I don't see whats so different about the private rule following of a private language over and against things like privately reassigning words or speaking an otherwise dead public language.

I have heard many people complain about Lyotard's misreading of Wittgenstein but very few specific complaints. What is wrong with it exactly? I get that it is rather post-modern and misuses some terms, but it seems like a fairly plausible interpretation to me in the broad strokes.

>2020
>Doing metaphysics

>But at the very time when Fania Pascal made this assessment of him, she was teaching him Russian so that he and his friend might migrate to Soviet Union to which he was sympathetically drawn for all the fellow travelling-reasons. He declared numerous times in the 1930s to disciples and friends in private. 'I am a communist at heart'; he always evinced considerable understanding for what Stalin 'had to do' even after his visit to Russia in 1935 at the height of the purges; and he continued to entertain plans to settle there at least until the Anschluss in 1938. Keynes, puts it mildly when he states, 'he is not a member of the Communist Party,but has strong sympathies with the way of life which he believes the new regime in Russia stands for.' His communist friends of 'Red Cambridge', with whom he extensively associated, considered him a supporter if not an outright Stalinist.
Not just a communist but a fucking Stalin apologist, kek
fucking dropped

>>15759230
Wrong image

All disagreements are simply misunderstandings, calm down dummies

>>15660008

So later Wittgenstein was a crypto-photographer?

>>15642580
>Did someone say metaphysics?

>Ethics and aesthetics are one.

What did he mean by this?

He was genetically mentally ill? 3 of his 4 siblings committed suicide and he also wrote a suicide note once

> Wittgenstein friend and collaborator David Hume Pinsent, with whom he traveled on holidays together, describes Wittgenstein’s frequent thoughts of suicide at numerous places in his own diary. In Pinsent’s entry for June 1, 1912, he notes that Wittgenstein told him that he had suffered from terrific loneliness for the past nine years, that he had thought of suicide then, and that he felt ashamed of never daring to kill himself

Wittgensteinian Shitpostism

Getting super drunk gonna hang myself

What audiobook to play while i fade away

>Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

So, what's an example of a thing you cannot speak of and therefore must remain silent of?

Why are references to the influences of stirner, spengler and weininger on his work so rare?

Can you explain Wittgenstein as if you would to a retard?

>>14921055
From Wittgestein culture and value

>>What inclines even me to believe in Christ's resurrection? I play as it were with the thought.--If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like every human being. He is dead & decomposed. In that case he is a teacher, like any other & can no longer help; & we are once more orphaned & alone. And have to make do with wisdom & speculation. It is as though we are in a hell, where we can only†a dream & are shut out from heaven, roofed in as it were. But if I am to be REALLY redeemed,--I need certainty--not wisdom, dreams, speculation--and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what my heart, my soul, needs, not my speculative intellect. For my soul, with its passions, as it were with its flesh & blood, must be redeemed, not my abstract mind.

*ends philosophy*

>>14751291

This ugly fuck broke my brain and my view on this world, I hope he burns in hell

What language games do we play on /lit/?