[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 42 KB, 400x301, Ludwig_Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710410 No.2710410 [Reply] [Original]

>The solution of the problem you see in life is a way of living which makes what is problematic disappear. The fact that life is problematic means that your life does not fit life's shape. So you must change your life, and once it fits the shape, what is problematic will disappear. But don't we have the feeling that someone who doesn't see a problem there is blind to something important, indeed to what is most important of all? Wouldn't I like to say he is living aimlessly--just blindly like a mole as it were; and if he could only see, he would see the problem? Or shouldn't I say: someone who lives rightly does not experience the problem as sorrow, hence not after all as a problem, but rather as joy, that is so to speak as a bright halo round his life, not a murky background.

>> No.2710442

>Work on philosophy--like work in architecture in many respects--is really more work on oneself. On one's own conception. On how one sees things. (And what one expects of them.)

>> No.2710453

>It appears to me as though a religious belief could only be (something like) passionately committing oneself to a system of coordinates. Hence although it's belief, it is really a way of living, or a way of judging life. Passionately taking up this interpretation. And so instructing in a religious belief would have to be portraying, describing that system of reference & at the same time appealing to the conscience. And these together would have to result finally in the one under instruction himself, of his own accord, passionately taking up that system of reference. It would be as though someone were on the one hand to let me see my hopeless situation, on the other depict the rescue-anchor, until of my own accord, or at any rate not led by the hand by the instructor, I were to rush up & seize it.

>> No.2710455

>If I say that my book is meant for only a small circle of people (if that can be called a circle) I do not mean to say that this circle is in my view the élite of mankind but it is the circle to which I turn (not because they are better or worse than the others but) because they form my cultural circle, as it were my fellow countrymen in contrast to the others who are foreign to me. I am really writing for friends who are scattered throughout the corners of the globe.

>> No.2710460

>. Philosophers are often like little children who first scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and now ask the grown-up "what's that?"--It happened like this: The grown-up had often drawn something for the child & said: "this is a man", "this is a house" etc. And now the child makes some marks too and asks: and what's this then?"

>> No.2710466

>Put someone in the wrong atmosphere & nothing will function as it should. He will seem unhealthy in every part. Bring him back into his right element, & everything will blossom and look healthy. But if he is not in his right element, what then? Well he just has to make the best of looking like a cripple.

>> No.2710467

very nice, OP

>> No.2710479

>The propositions of logic describe the scaffolding of the world, or rather they represent it. They have no ‘subject-matter’. They presuppose that names have meaning and elementary propositions sense; and that is their connexion with the world. It is clear that something about the world must be indicated by the fact that certain combinations of symbols—whose essence involves the possession of a determinate character—are tautologies. This contains the decisive point. We have said that some things are arbitrary in the symbols that we use and that some things are not. In logic it is only the latter that express: but that means that logic is not a field in which we express what we wish with the help of signs, but rather one in which the nature of the natural and inevitable signs speaks for itself. If we know the logical syntax of any sign-language, then we have already been given all the propositions of logic.

>> No.2710488

what is this, the blue or brown book?

<3 late Witty

>> No.2710508

>>2710488

Most of these are from Culture and Value, which is a collection of notes on ethics, music, religion, etc. which he wrote over the course of his life. Many pre-date "late Wittgenstein."

>If we hear a Chinese we tend to take his speech for inarticulate gurgling. Someone who understands Chinese will recognize language in what he hears. Similarly I often cannot recognize the human being in someone etc. Worked a bit, but without success.

>> No.2710510

>>2710508
ah yeah. It's been a while since I read Culture and Value. I loved it.

>> No.2710512

Wittgenstein is my hero.

>> No.2710516

>People nowadays think, scientists are there to instruct them, poets, musicians etc. to entertain them. That the latter have something to teach them; that never occurs to them.

>> No.2710521

>Religious similes can be said to move on the edge of the abyss. Bunyan's allegory for instance. For what if we simply add: "and all these traps, swamps, wrong turnings, were planted by the Lord of the Road, the monsters, thieves, robbers were created by him?" Without doubt, that is not the sense of the simile! but this sequel is too obvious! For many & for me it robs the simile of its power. But more especially if this is--as it were--suppressed. It would be different if it were said openly at every turn: 'I am using this as a simile, but look: it doesn't fit here'. Then you wouldn't feel you were being cheated, that someone were trying to convince you by trickery. You can say to someone for instance: "Thank God for the good you receive but don't complain about the evil, as you would of course do if a human being were to do you good and evil by turns." Rules of life are dressed up in pictures. And these pictures can only serve to describe what we are supposed to do, but not to justify it. Because to be a justification they would have to hold good in other respects too. I can say: "Thank these bees for their honey as though they were good people who have prepared it for you"; that is intelligible & describes how I wish you to behave. But not: “Thank them, for look how good they are!"--since the next moment they may sting you.

>> No.2710524

the sections on religion in C&V more or less opened religion up to me. perhaps not something one would expect from Wittgenstein but it's all his doing

>> No.2710531

>People are religious to the extent that they believe themselves to be not so much imperfect as sick. Anyone who is half-way decent will think himself utterly imperfect, but the religious person thinks himself wretched.

>> No.2710545

>It might also be said: hate between human beings comes from our cutting ourselves off from each other. Because we don't want anyone else to see inside us, since it's not a pretty sight in there.

>> No.2710552

>Nietzsche writes somewhere, that even the best poets & thinkers have written mediocre & bad stuff, but have just separated off the good. But it is not quite like that. It's true that along with the roses a gardener has manure & sweepings & straw in his garden, but they are distinguished not only by value, but above all too by function in the garden. What looks like a bad sentence can be the germ of a good one.

>> No.2710558

>I think there is some truth in my idea that I am really only reproductive in my thinking. I think I have never invented a line of thinking but that it was always provided for me by someone else & I have done no more than passionately take it up for my work of clarification. That is how Boltzmann Hertz Schopenhauer Frege, Russell, Kraus, Loos Weininger Spengler, Sraffa have influenced me. Can one take Breuer & Freud as an example of Jewish reproductive thinking?-- What I invent are new comparisons.

>> No.2710562

>Someone reacts like this: he says "Not that!"--& resists it. Out of this situations perhaps develop which are equally intolerable; & perhaps by then strength for any further revolt is exhausted. We say "If he hadn't done that, the evil would not have come about." But with what justification? Who knows the laws according to which society unfolds? I am sure even the cleverest has no idea. If you fight, you fight. If you hope, you hope. Someone can fight, hope & even believe, without believing scientifically.

>> No.2710572

>In the Gospels--as it seems to me--everything is less pretentious, humbler, simpler. There you find huts;--with Paul a church. There all human beings are equal & God himself is a human being; with Paul there is already something like a hierarchy; honours, and official positions.-- That is, as it were, what my NOSE tells me. Let us be human.—

>> No.2710578

I read some, but now I'm tired because they are all fucking green.

You're taking this from wikiquotes or something?

>> No.2710581

>The queer resemblance between a philosophical investigation (perhaps especially in mathematics) and one in aesthetics. (E.g. what is bad about this garment, how it should be, etc..)

>> No.2710601

>>2710578

I made notes when I read the book.

>Our civilization is characterized by the word progress. Progress is its form, it is not one of its properties that it makes progress. Typically it constructs. Its activity is to construct a more and more complicated structure. And even clarity is only a means to this end & not an end in itself. For me on the contrary clarity, transparency, is an end in itself. I am not interested in erecting a building but in having the foundations of possible buildings transparently before me. So I am aiming at something different than are the scientists & my thoughts move differently than do theirs.

>> No.2710624

>If I realized how mean & petty I am, I should become more modest. Nobody can say with truth of himself that he is filth. For if I do say it, though it can be true in a sense, still I cannot myself be penetrated by this truth: otherwise I should have to go mad, or change myself.

>> No.2710648

>I myself still find my way of philosophizing new, & it keeps striking me so afresh, & that is why I have to repeat myself so often. It will have become part of the flesh & blood of a new generation & it will find the repetitions boring. For me they are necessary.--This method consists essentially in leaving the question of truth and asking about sense instead.