/lit/ - Literature

Just

Where do I start with this guy? Is there a chart?

DON'T SPEAK
I KNOW WHAT YOURE THINKING
AND I DON'T NEED YOUR REASONS
DON'T TELL ME CUZ IT HURTS

>language must be meaningful
>meaning requires judgements of right and wrong
>right and wrong can only be determined in context
>context is created by community
>an individual cant create context, therefore they cant have their own right and wrong and so are unable to individually say something with meaning so private languages are not possible

did i get this wrong? sounds like a tautology to me

>>11129713

>2 What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts
2.01 An atomic fact is a combination of objects (entities, things).
>2.014 Objects contain the possibility of all states of affairs.

I do not understand the last proposition. How can an object contain the possibility of a state of affair in which he is not? If non-being is a possibility within the object, then in that possibility it cannot be in connection to any other object or fact. When thinking of an apple for instance, I cannot think of a situation where there are other objects but no apple because that possibility is not contained within the apple.
I understand of course how is the proposition true when the object is, but not when the object is not (as possibilities of course).
Maybe I'm brainlet and completely misunderstood the point Wittgenstein was making, but if that's the case I'd appreciate some clarifications, thanks.

Will I understand Wittgenstein if my mathematics education ended in the 12th grade?

>>11027577
>not studying engineering
never gonna make it

>>11015169
If by "psychology" you mean "clearing up conceptual and semantical confusion produced by our language." But that's all philosophy is anyway.

There is a rhinoceros in this thread.

>2018
>thinking there was ever anything worth writing

Why are analytics so dumb?

Criticize fiction in this thread.

>>10885062
>>10886671
"Woman" is not a set defined by a few necessary properties but merely a set of peoples that bear a family resemblance to each other. Traps could be reasonably argued to fall within either family of "man" and "woman" to one degree or the other. How "gay" traps are is therefore relative to how "feminine" versus how "masculine" in nature they are.

Plato argues traps are to a larger extant feminine than masculine.

And Aristotle is arguing the opposite.

But I have the feeling that Plato is arguing in bad faith.

If you asked Plato point blank he would have to admit that a trap is more male than female and therefore gay.

>>10881636
If you didn't even notice the difference in term its probably all bullshit anyway

>>10805901
OUT OF MY WAY YOU UTTER FAGGOT

shut up

He couldn't shut the fuck up.

When silence drowns the screams.

SHUT THE FUCK UP
LOL