>>25277131
>analytics bumble in the dark for decades
>a single Jew destroys their ambitions forever
>they continue to prattle and blame “continentals” for their incompetence

>>25277131

"Who are you?" said Lunkwill, rising angrily from his seat. "What do you want?"

"I am Majikthise!" announced the older one.

"And I demand that I am Vroomfondel!" shouted the younger one.

Majikthise turned on Vroomfondel. "It's alright," he explained angrily, "you don't need to demand that."

"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"

"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"

Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"

"But who the devil are you?" exclaimed an outraged Fook.

"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers."

"Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers.

"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"

"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.

"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"

"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"

"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"

"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Suddenly a stentorian voice boomed across the room.

"Might I make an observation at this point?" inquired Deep Thought.

"We'll go on strike!" yelled Vroomfondel.

"That's right!" agreed Majikthise. "You'll have a national Philosopher's strike on your hands!"

File: tldr.png (9 KB, 811x113)

9 KB PNG

>>25277166
the TLDR

>>25277166
>>25277208
>LLM summarizes LLM
owari da

File: Screenshot_20260514-210219~2.jpg (153 KB, 1096x489)

153 KB JPG

There's nothing in Wittgenstein you can't find in Plato or Cicero or Sextus or Damascius.
But most "philosophers" of the 20th century were filtered by the Dialogue form and never actually read Plato.
>dialectics are unending
No shit.

SOCRATES: By making the point that it is through discourse that the same
thing flits around, becoming one and many in all sorts of ways, in whatever
it may be that is said at any time, both long ago and now. And this will
never come to an end, nor has it just begun, but it seems to me that this
is an “immortal and ageless” condition3 that comes to us with discourse.
Whoever among the young first gets a taste of it is as pleased as if he had
found a treasure of wisdom. He is quite beside himself with pleasure and
revels in moving every statement, now turning it to one side and rolling
it all up into one, then again unrolling it and dividing it up. He thereby
involves first and foremost himself in confusion, but then also whatever
others happen to be nearby, be they younger or older or of the same age,
16 sparing neither his father nor his mother nor anyone else who might listen
to him. He would almost try it on other creatures, not only on human
beings, since he would certainly not spare any foreigner if only he could
find an interpreter somewhere.
———
“If god is to be stripped of knowing,” he said, “our argument may be getting too bizarre.”
“And yet, Socrates,” said Parmenides, “the forms inevitably involve these objections and a host of others besides – if there are those characters for things, and a person is to mark off each form as ‘something itself.’ As a result, whoever hears about them is doubtful and objects that they do
not exist, and that, even if they do, they must by strict necessity be unknowable to human nature; and in saying this he seems to have a point; and,
as we said, he is extraordinarily hard to win over. Only a very gifted man can come to know that for each thing there is some kind, a being itself by itself; but only a prodigy more remarkable still will discover that and be able to teach someone else who has sifted all these difficulties thoroughly and critically for himself.”
“I agree with you, Parmenides,” Socrates said. “That’s very much what I think too.”
“Yet on the other hand, Socrates,” said Parmenides, “if someone, having an eye on all the difficulties we have just brought up and others of thee same sort, won’t allow that there are forms for things and won’t mark off a form for each one, he won’t have anywhere to turn his thought, since he doesn’t allow that for each thing there is a character that is always the same. In this way he will destroy the power of dialectic entirely. But I
think you are only too well aware of that.”