has anyone read much wittgenstein's posthumous publications? which collections are most worth your time? I noticed there was a new translation of On Certainty published this year, has anyone checked that out?
Fuck you Ive been wanting to talk about PI forever and you not letting me sucks.On Wittgenstein though, I genuinely think he solved philosophy for me atleast. That doesnt mean my interest in philosophy has died, since Im still looking for a way to find meaning beyond his conclusions anyway, but he REALLY has developed the most accurate philosophy imo, that accurately captures the day to day way I have to deal with the way that thr average and typical person deals with concepts, ideas and "truth". What he concluded applies to EVERYTHING LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Im not one of those guys that goes "bleh philosophy is le too abstract and doesnt apply to real life lenough" but if all I had ever read was Wittgenstein, or if he was the first philosophy I read, I might think that, because man. I really do not need anything else. I think now more than ever in our modern society, with how social media allows for anyone and everyone to have a voice, the problems (theyre problems to me) of language are sooooo much more far reaching and widespread. And "mass" preconceptions, or what can simply be called "narratives" imo. DOMINATE the world and like the fundamental capacity for anything meaningful to even be expressed.Wittgenstein captures that fact, complete unintentionally (He was definitely not writing PI with what im talking about in mind) perfectly, no other philosopher has captured it as aptly.My journey in philosophy now is in trying to find meaning beyond language. I dont know if it can be objective, but I want to find something that can overcome language games and ordinary language use.>>24772050>On Certainty published this year, has anyone checked that out?I didnt even know this existed till a couple days ago, but I plan on reading it soon, seems like itd be pertinent to late Wittgenstein. Might get some direction on how to find meaning or "truth" or whether it even can be found.
>>24772055I agree for sure, his whole "philosophy as a way of life" and analogy with Goethe's color theory really struck a chord with me, what's the point in burying your nose trying to understand mangled translations of German Idealism instead of just living your life? >On Certaintyafaik this has as of late been considered his late "major work" following the investigations, with some interesting studies in current philosophy of language
>>24772058>afaik this has as of late been considered his late "major work" following the investigations, with some interesting studies in current philosophy of languageYeah. I need to read it asap. If I can find an audiobook on it for free that would be amazing, but more obscure works of authors are hard to find in free audiobook format, Ive struggled enough already to find Bergsons Mind and Matter, which Im currently trying to get through first.
>>24772050I really want to read this but I'm poorcel and I cannot find this in anna's archive. What should I do?
bump, cuz Wittgenstein is underappreciated compared to the retards that get spammed on this board
>>24772268the only way would probably be making friends with some students and getting access to a local university library
bump
>>24772058>>24772060I've read most of his readily available work and I'd rank On Certainty as one of his best, if not his very best work. For a philosopher as obtuse in form as Witty is, OC is the closest he gets to a straightforward work with a clear starting point and a few central questions, namely, "What can sensibly be doubted, and when can we say something is 'certain'?" Even better, he's quite willing here to actually come to a solution that's clear and highly applicable to the practice of philosophy: Doubt can only be sensibly raised when the thing one is doubting has a coherent alternate possibility. So, a question like, "Is what we are experiencing real, or is it an illusion?" has no philosophical sense because any explanation for how reality isn't real would fall into the same doubt that the original inquiry came from. You can ask if reality is real all you want, but if you can't formulate what a "real" reality would entail, then you're not actually asking a question, you're just twisting the concept of "doubt" past its breaking point. Therefore, there are fundamental facts about your life that are certain, and questioning them would lead to nothing but insanity. Yet these facts aren't even necessarily things we are conscious "of" but are thoughts on which our conscious concepts are built. Everyday perceptions like, "Five minute ago I took a piss," are so banal we are barely even aware of them, yet are so fundamental to our sense of reality that if we really *were* capable of doubting them, we'd fall into inescapable psychosis. Kind of a spooky conclusion, especially given Witty's preoccupation and personal history with insanity throughout his life.
>>24774237Interesting. Cant wait to read OC. At the very least OC then suggests that his conclusions in PI dont necessarily mean that truth or untruth cant be understood or arrived at.
>>24774268Well, the interesting thing is that his notion of certainty isn't really referencing truth or untruth; it is really more of a function of how and in what instances we can or can't doubt something. Like he writes about in PI, we are stuck within language where any attempt to reference a Truth beyond words will always just fall back into language games. (As far as I remember, I don't think OC contradicts anything PI says, but it's been a while since I've read them or secondary lit on Wit.) So while in our private beliefs the facts that are certain to us appear to express an external reality that can't be otherwise (i.e. truth), we are certain of them not because of this reality but because of our belief cannot possibly be otherwise. And although that would make them "true" for us, this level of certainty must be lived through on the personal level and is therefore not a "truth" in an expressible way that would be a certainty for someone else. If I were to say, "I am a human being and not an incredibly life-like robot," that means something very different for myself versus whoever is listening to me. So On Certainty still doesn't "arrive at" truth or emerge from the inescapability of language games, but it does set a boundary point of what is sensible within these games.Going to bed now (apologies if any of the above was confused in my tiredness); will check back tomorrow if the thread is still up
>>24772050Those are the only two I've read, I haven't bothered with the others. About four years ago some anon liked to put it about that "On Certainty" was the greatest thing ever. Honestly I don't remember much about PI except "concrete-example this, concrete-example that, here's some pictures and diagram IQ tests and such", but then "hey wait a minute that isn't quite right did you think about this instead huh". I preferred the Tractatus' declarative style, although he used very poor brace diagrams in the back half to connote how truth tables work.
>>24774323>although he used very poor brace diagrams in the back half to connote how truth tables work.lol what?
>>24774331Not going to spoonfeed you. It's short as fuck and a short search away. His whole treatement of truth functions was obfuscatory and mysterious in various ways, and his purported nesting-comment schema had some inconsistencies as well. Still, he managed to provide somewhat better food for thought in the first one, while pulling the ladder back after him (or, after the reader has been along with him).
>>24774351I think youre retarded and couldn't provide basis for anything you said regardless lol, so I was just testing if you would even bother, and you didnt.>Still, he managed to provide somewhat better food for thought in the first one, while pulling the ladder back after himlol, you speak like a retard who has never read either books, but has heard how theyve been talked about after the fact by people who claim to be professionals. lol, legit almost thought your initial post gave AI vibes but it was too "human", in the fact that it referred to an "I" that vaguely remembers concepts that I have never ever heard in PI (concrete example? IQ tests? lmfao fucking what???? even if somehow i forgot these concepts, theyre not even close to the first ones that come to mind when i think of PI, since he repeats analogies all the time. I think of his talk about how pain can only exist with language, about +2, about the chess board analogies, about the fucking steamed pot vs pictured steam pot, about the main in the painting (my memory is ironically fuzzier on this one even though it comes towards the end of the book) and of course that one analogy about a beetle in a box or something)yeah, youre one hundred percent a larping retard. I dont even care about tractatus, its rendered obsolete by its own author, it was just a test to see if you could make coherent criticism that proves you understand anything being talked about.
