/lit/ - Literature

>>11669187
We live in a society... WHICH USES WORDS.

It's weird that he's combining saying Wittgenstein is not popular except in a "small clique," when he IS generally popular and well-regarded in analytic philosophy, among exactly the kinds of people who champion that smug, self-satisfied, "metaphysics is just pseudo-problems generated by linguistic confusions" sort of quietism. Those are the people among whom Wittgenstein has always been popular, principally. And it's a bad reading of Wittgenstein anyway.

Wittgenstein isn't really obscure. He gets a bad reputation mainly because the TLP is definitely obscure, but only because it's straining to do a very sophisticated anti-Fregean conceptual manoeuvre (actually, it's still disputed what exactly it's doing) from within a dated, Fregean jargon. And because even his later, much better work has been curated mostly by disciples of that Fregean jargon, so even though it's arguably easy to understand and stands on its own two feet, it's usually taught by people as a subordinate appendage of that Fregean tradition, and not at all on as standing upright on its own two feet.

>everyone got absolutely shitter shattered for hundreds of years by three 17th century theologians having moderately different takes

>>11669187
I think Witt asked some important questions on the true nature of communication. Being a software engineer working on blockchain I see multiple areas where we try to use blockchain to communicate data in a uniform way.

Wittgenstein is incredibly insightful and important but he does seem to deal with what might perhaps be considered the more mundane aspects of language, at least in TLP. I actually ordered PI online the other day so unable to comment on that until I read it. I do, however, find late Heidegger and post-structuralists like Derrida and Deleuze still have interesting things to say about private and poetic and evocative and invocative language which compliments Wittgenstein's insights on referential statements nicely like sorta yin yang.

>>11669187
>Paul Horwich is a professor of philosophy at New York University
I like how shook these philosophers are by someone they deem as fringe and unworthy of their discipline. Philosophy should really have ended with him regardless of his exposition of it. How on earth do modern institution pay these 'intellectuals' to pointlessly babble about nothing and justify it by proclaiming that philosophy 'has no direct solutions to its questions because its meant to stimulate thought xD'

>>11670014
You'd think that a discipline that hasn't been able to yield a single answer to any problem whatsoever after over 2,000 years of trying would be looked at with some sort of skepticism, but nope.

>>11670014
Because they can.

>>11670038
>thinks philosophy is A discipline
absolute state

>>11670038
>Gives birth to science
Idk. Seems useful.

What? Wittgenstein is still highly regarded. Even my continental focused department has a lot of respect for him and speak of him highly.

>>11670063
it is as useful as alchemy for giving birth to chemistry and astrology for giving birth to astronomy

>>11669187
>The uniquely insightful answers provided to these meta-questions are what give his treatments of specific issues within the subject — concerning language, experience, knowledge, mathematics, art and religion among them — a power of illumination that cannot be found in the work of others."
imagine being such a retard for taking seriously people before Wittgenstein that you claim that Wittgenstein was a genius

Wittgenstein is the picasso of imagination, a pure hack.

>>11670038
your grammar is confusing you

>>11670123
Which is to say it is underappreciated by retards. Might as well say newton is useless to science due to modern developments.

>>11670150
except newton's classical mechanics actually gives us solutions within the inertial frame of reference

>Which is to say it is underappreciated by retards
or overestimated by """""intellectuals"""""

>>11670223
And alchemy and astrology did contain useful chemical procedures from the former and tracking of planetary movement from the perspective of earth from the latter despite all the mystic balderdash attached to both.

>>11669187
Wittgenstien is an unmitigated genius. Even people who others consider geniuses at the time thought he was a genius, more genius then them, such as his friends at Cambridge Russell and G.E Moore and Maynard Keynes.

Wittgenstien's problem was that he could not channel that genius in a deliverable fashion. He was unconcerned with presenting his ideas to everyone except his top students and hot precocious college twinks. (He was gay btw.)

So you have to do the work of covering his whole body of work much of which was never prepared for publication. He was a sperg and didn't care about publishing his ideas. If Wittgenstien had an editor he would have published more than 2 amazing books in his lifetime.

>>11670250
>actually making a case for alchemy and astrology
well, at least you recognize that the philosophy is on par with these obvious pseudosciences when it comes to usefulness

>>11670317
I would add that the other gay genius of the time period and region, Alan Turing, thought Wittgenstien was a joke. But he was the only person smart enough to see it.

Too bad, they would have made for quite the power couple.

>>11670014
The vast majority of academic figures in history have been either hacks or irrelevant, this isn't news

>>11670325
Honestly, (most) philosophy is mostly just religionist apologism and magical thinking but ocassionally there are geniuses who make breathroughs that reverbate beyond the echo chambers of ivory tower word wank. Usually such breathroughs are done by and for science.

>>11670327
>Alan Turing, thought Wittgenstien was a joke
source on this?

i do know that they crossed paths but did Turing actually have a hate boner for him?

>>11670150
terrible, stupid dilettante take

>>11669187

>>11669397
The TLP is all whining. Wittgenstein sucked at math and he blames the notation for it. Total brainlet.

>>11670038
The problem is academia, not philosophy. None of these fuckers are philosophers (i.e. seekers of truth/lovers of wisdom). They're all hobbyists, and their hobby of choice is the history of philosophy.

>>11670317
>Russell and G.E Moore and Maynard Keynes.
All retards.

>>11670325
Science is philosophy my dude.

>>11670422
>like, science is philosophy bro

>>11670325
What's wrong with defending alchemy and astrology? Both these disciplines were important before the scientific method, and saying they were bad from the modern lense is extremly pseud-y

>>11669187
>>11670014
>philosophy academics don't like the guy who, if taken seriously, would put them all out of a job
who would have thought?

>Alan Turing, thought Wittgenstien was a joke
no he didn't. a transcript of w's lectures of foundations of maths is available and from there it's hard to think turing did anything but respect w, for all their disagreements

>>11670430
It literally is. No one made a distinction before the latter half of the 19th century and especially the 20th and the advent of rule by bureaucrats in academia.
Science is philosophy, or a certain philosophical method applied in order to extract a certain kind of information about the world.

>>11670450
Turing was just being polite.

>>11670436
im not discrediting them as precursors. All im saying is that they belong in the history books along with modern philosophy and all its derivatives, which stubbornly remain a force in higher education. A goddamn English degree is more legitimate than them.

>>11670430

>>11670470
Alchemy and astrology were properly "replaced" by chemistry and astronomy, what is there to "replace" philosophy? It has no real competitors (as far as we know right now)

>>11670455
>science used to be a subcategory of philosophy, therefore science is philosophy
^brainlet post 2bh

>>11670459
by interjecting with honest questions to which he didn't know the answer? by being clearly led in his thinking down paths w opened up as lecture progressed? nothing to do with politeness. the fact that turing even felt 30 odd lectures worth going to says something
I've never seen any evidence turing thought w a 'joke', complete fabrication by anon

>>11670503
Can you explain what you think natural philosophy is (or was)?

>>11670503
Science IS a philosophical school you total brainlet.

>>11670487
It doesn't necessarily need to have a replacement, it could simply be dropped from the educational domain. It has no utility beyond academia and should really be a therapeutic hobby at this point.

>>11670566
>utility

yikes

>>11670566
>>11670568
I concur, my only response to this can be yikes
>anything experimental is useless for us

>>11670530
>this has a word in it
>this one has the same word
>therefore they are basically the same thing
lmao by that logic someone with a stem PhD is doctor of philosophy and knows about kant and hegel

>>11670366
IIRC Turing said Wittgenstein was "a very peculiar man"

>>11670568
>PAY ME TO TEACH YOU PSEUDOSCIENCE

>>11670579
You didn't answer the question but alright

>>11670579
>>11670595
PhD is a doctor of philosophy. That's what a doctorate is. The field doesn't matter it is still doctor of philosophy.

>>11670548
you can keep repeating it as loud as you want but science isn't philosophy.

>>11670579
Let’s be honest here, most of you know nothing about what makes something a science. Technically speaking Mises’ Praxeology is a science, if Ill founded, and it uses little to no mathematics. Von Neumann’s or Pareto’s heavily mathematical theories regarding economics are a science as well.

Anything is a science when it looks at the phenomena as it is. Really, with all the complex exchange curves the bare minimum economics analyzed, they are really studying collective social behavior. And this is why it’s a ‘social’ science.

For you to say that something is a science, its objective must be phenomenological truth, concerning a phenomenon like material reality or existence.

An art would be something that you would apply that science to. As such, fiction is art, and some philosophy is art, because it’s about applying a social philosophy to life.

When you study how and why people function and behave the way they do, that’s science. Keynes is both. Hayek is a scientist.

But the more artistic one uses math. Go figure, there is no correlation there.

If you want my opinion, many existentialists are really more artistic than scientific, because they want you to apply their philosophies to your life, like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche

>>11670599
>PhD is a doctor of philosophy
yet it contains no actual philosophy and is just a title. The point is that science in our current definition is distinct from philosophy regardless of whether it was called 'natural philosophy' (which no one uses anymore). I like how the last line of defense from philosophy adherents is to twist words and make false connections. It definitely isn't a cult ideology lmao.

>>11670604
>Anything is a science when it looks at the phenomena as it is
no you brainlet, a science must meet certain criterias like reproducibility and falsifiability, none of this phenomenology bullshit.

>>11670640
I personally don't care whether one makes a distinction between science and philosophy, just find it a bit inconsistent to critique philosophy because it isn't as useful as science despite science being born out of philosophical thought

>>11670654
>must meet certain criteries
>reproducibility and falsifiability
Thats wrong on so many levels but go on, interesting seeing 8th graders explain what science is

>>11670660
>science came from philosophy
>'I know lets just keep philosophizing surely we'll come up with something better!'
dude just give it up nothing positive will come out of maintaining this discipline

>>11670664
>hurrr phenomena something something existence
>SCIENCE, GUYS!

>>11670671
>Quantum physics came from theoretical and experimental physics
>'I know lets just keep theoretically phycisicing surely we'll come up with something better!'
You're getting dull

>>11670689
Quantum physics IS theoretical and experimental you retarded frogposter

>>11670600
I'm not the same guy. I'm just saying you are being dumb about this one definition. A PhD of flower arrangement is still a "doctor of philosophy"!

>>11670600
I am pointing out there is no past tense to it.
You can claim the contrary until you're blue in the face.
You're fucking dumb.

>this whole thread
I hate summer.

>>11670735
And science did come from philosophy you retarded non-frog poster

>>11670774
>And science did come from philosophy
that isn't what I was objecting to idiot

>>11670640
Freaking under age mfs. No, this >>11670747

>>11670765
Seriously

>>11670793
I dont think you know yourself what you're objecting to

>>11670317
Adding on this. Wittgenstein attended the same private school as Hitler did. They were classmates and so on. It is not too farfetched to claim that Wittgenstein was a formatory influence for Hitler's antisemitism.

someone give me a quick rundown on this nigga pls

>>11669352
HERE ME OH BATHWATER WASTER! I MEANT ONLY THE CHILD!

>>11671630
it's pretty far fetched (there's a book putting forward the theory that's ridiculous a read itself but has been refuted by people who knew w if you're in any doubt). w was 2 years ahead of hitler at school, and there's no evidence they knew each other at all. you think you'd have heard about it before if there was even the slightest bit of plausibility to this.