I need to understand the Tractatus, understand what mistakes he found in it later in life and understand his thoughts on the philosophy of mathematics. Recommend me books on those subjects that are as straightfoward as possible. Thanks.
This Complicated Form of Life, Newton GarverAnything by Peter Winch Avoid overly analytic commentators, avoid Kripke, avoid “New Wittgenstein” “therapy” cultists
>>25337491But I also need the understand the mathematical logic behind his work, not only his ideas.
You're fucked, best just say "Logic ultimately demonstrates its own logic, I can't add more" then swiftly depart.
Obviously Ray Monk's biography.
>>25337475Good luck. I had longer to think about it and can't really answer that.>For the same reason the idealist’s appeal to ‘spatial spectacles’ is inadequate to explain the seeing of spatial relations because it cannot explain the multiplicity of these relations.That's from the TLP. Later Wittgenstein after the rule paradox is where things turn into more of a 'just go do it' type of system. He mentions it as practice, he mentions it is application specific, and he also claims most of what is useful is empirically derived but it almost solidifies and hardens into a codification. This can be broken. >look as much as you want but I'm not convinced there is an agreement on this>promise to leave it as it is>if that's a rule is it also subject to the paradox?
>>25337505It definitely doesn't do this THOUGH the consistency of logic is undecidable
>>25337491>Avoid overly analytic commentators, avoid KripkeWittgenstein is my favourite philosopher, quite literally consider him the first philosopher to touch me deeply in a way I understand, also the first philosopher to genuinely change my thought not merely its direction.I've heard about Kripke. Can't remember if hes the influential one on language that cam before Witt or if thats Frege, regardless, Wittgenstein is so foundational to me, that as far as im concerned there is a Pre Wittgenstein time and a Post Wittgenstein time in philosophy, and asside from french philosophy around that time, I am almost strictly interested in post Wittgenstein philosophy because I cannot imagine anything that doesnt consider Wittgenstein in the future being meaningful.I say this as somebody who desires to escape Wittgenstein's grasp. He was too right, too insightful, and if you take his conclusions completely, then philosophy is meant to end at him. And I don't want that, even though every day I interact with more and more people, more and more uses of language, I find that he is more and more right.
>>25338061qrd?
>>25338081qrd on what?
>>25338084qrd on deez nuts bitch
>>25337475he invented the modern shitlib:>uhhh define the word "violence"thanks for all the shitty word games with these faggots Witty!p.s.Godel's looking down laughing at your ass in hell
>>25339122How does Godel disproves Wittgenstein.
>>25339128Ludwig tried going after the incompleteness theorem and just embarrassed himself
>>25339128Wittgenstein try to ontologically reduce metaphysics out of reality by claiming that all reality can be reduced do these logical tautologies (self-contained axioms); pretty much word knowledge and that word knowledge is subjectively arbitrary (we create our own metaphysics/solipsism (with some pluralizing mechanism he failed to ever define)).Godel comes along (fucken hates Witty btw as a faggot jew atheist (such antinomy, talk about "fallen") that he tricks the whole faggot jew atheist club called the Vienna Circle that they are in that he's "one of them", and completely dismantles their Logical Positivism worldview in realtime by demonstrating effectively that reality can't formally fully describe itself (let alone simple formal axiomatic systems within it like mathematics); so Wittgenstein and his God-hating friends like Bertrand Russell objectively got their whole ontological atheistic materialistic nominalistic worldview wrong and pretty much have to accept that metaphysical arguments else they look like radically skeptical retards that don't want to admit it out of spite (not intellectual rigor).You can't explain the universe with just logic alone or math alone or physics alone. Mereologically it doesn't add up; but then we still have to deal with these same gay incredulous arguments primarily from Leftists who want to be god(s) instead of serving a God/Logos.see Apotheosis vs Theosis
>>25339152>You can't explain the universe with just logic alone or math alone or physics alone.in Wittgenstein's case: Godel proved that you can't explain reality with words alone (or lack there of).
>>25339165It's also why Witty faded the fuck off toward the end of his career and kinda had to take the syncratic position of Nominal Realism: words create reality.We cast spells at each other with words and grammar; shape/define/invent meaning (again this social constructionism is not a good philosophical position to hold as it's just sophisticated solipsism again/self-apotheosis).Wittgenstein and Co's real meta-philosophy was "Any Philosophy but God".
>>25339173> it's just sophisticated solipsism again/self-apotheosisWhen you think the name "Wittgenstein", think of think of this pic.Signifier and Signified...
>>25339183that faggot did A LOT of damage to my timeline...
>>25339152>as a faggot jew atheistI have never seen someone so uneducated on Wittgenstein posting on /lit/ before. You literally do not know the first thing about him, you believe in the modern lie about him being a homosexual that was spread by a fake note one of his early biographers read, you believe he remained an atheist his entire life when he completely changed his views on faith during the first world war and almost became a catholic monk, you believe he was in agreement with the Vienna Circle when he literally outright told them that they were interpreting the Tractatus wrong. You have no fucking clue about any of the things you're talking about.
>>25339211On top of that, Wittgenstein literally had a girlfriend that was like 20 years younger than him at some point, but people still believe the lie about him being gay because he valued his friendship with Pinsent a lot despite neither of them ever writing anything romantic or sexual to each other.
>>25339122>thanks for all the shitty word games with these faggots Witty!what is this stupid dumb fucking retard talking about? anytime i see somebody use "game" as "not serious not real pass time activity!" I instantly shoot them, because they are proving Witt's point without realizing it, they have no cognizance though to understand such
Stupid thread full of stupid people. Not participating anymore. Forgot how people engage with "philosophy" here, they just throw out a name of a subset of philosophy, name it bad, and then pretend they disproved or established anything because no other retard knows enough to deconstruct or point out the fact that a retard just said or proved nothing, works doubly so if the school of thought is already preconceived as weak or illegitimate
>>25339228This board is full of charlatans.
>>25339218>>25339220keep dickriding him
>>25339672not an argument, concessioned out of existence.
>>25339233>charlatansphilosophy has yet to produce a transcendent/wise man.fucken charlatans the lot of you; petty human "gods"
>>25339675What argument?He didn't have one once it got dismantled.Wittgenstein died with no solid worldview.Sorry bro.
>>25337505this would fool a psychology podcaster, not a philosophy professor
>>25339228>>25339675you POS sophist... trying to convince everyone the truth that the truth is not real.fucken a...Godel demonstrated to you thick obtuse fuckers that the Epistemology must be Ontological and Ethical; not an exclusive category unto itself: the TRUTH must be REAL in order for Philosophy to fucken even work and produce wisdom. Otherwise... IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.It's why Godel was a Logical Theist since it turns out God fits the category of Living Truth (i.e. Epistemology True, Ontologically Real, and Ethically Right).So pretty please with sugar on top, start going to Church faggots and begin worshiping the Truth.Time is not on your side...
>>25339734All you've done is convinced me that this Godel guy who's lauded for his theorem or whatever is actually a retard. Its always the ones closest to math and science that have such a comically childish narrow view of the world."Ontological and Ethical" Do any of these people ever have the self awareness to understand how much theyre baking into these terms? And how no matter how desperately they wish to seperate it from normal use, implications and platitudes, they cannot, because the fundamental basis for something even being communicable and understandable, is ceding "explanatory" (dont like this word but in this case, for the purpose of borrowing a term analytic retards love to express communication, its fine) power to the "people". The only flaw of Wittgenstein, (among another one which I dont consider a flaw but rather my inability to completely accept Wittgenstein's undeniable truthfulness) is he doesn't quite outline what underlying social facts about Humanity direct certain values enshrined through language.
>>25339770fuck you, why should I be ethical to you?why engage in dialectics with you? (be honest PLEASE)you want to start from baseline? why should I follow logic. because it's logical? you gonna hit me with that tautology... because that's the line that Wittgenstein took and it's not impressive then and it's not impressive now
>>25339793>why should I follow logic. because it's logical? I was already trending towards here, but Wittgenstein is what allowed me to finally abandon logic. I am done with overarching systems (for now) that come with a ton of assumed baggage. Wittgenstein really did succeed in what he set out in Philosophical Investigations. To give peace to people who dwell on these complex questions, never quite satisfied with the answer.Maybe Wittgenstein couldnt create a completeness theorem, but what he offered in ending Philosophy was far more meaningful in understanding not just philosophy, but the world as it really is (Kant helped with this too) a world by Human societies, for Human societies, because only Human societies can see as Human societies see, and construct based on that. I had heard opinions like this before, but the unique thing about philosophy isnt the opinion. Its the justification/demonstration. Its why I cant even reduce Wittgenstein to "Language as Use" because that word "Use" sneaks in a ton of baggage that doesnt appropriately capture PI. That's what conclusions do, thats what opinions do, that whats language does, what it is meant to do, give you a signifier so that you can understand, without ever needing to know whether a beetle is really in the box.
>>25339814>what allowed me to finally abandon logicI would say he phenomenologized logic and deontologized it from its universal category (making logic personal instead of general)>I am done with overarching systemsI guess no to metaphysics then> To give peace to people who dwell on these complex questionsIt can be a comfortable lie. Hence why I was screaming about how Wittgenstein collapses into sophistry/solipsism since people can/will develop their own subjective internal logics and these logics will not be consistent and coherent with other peoples' logics (leading to eternal conflict since this can never be collapsed into a sole logic since that would invalidate Wittgenstein's "beliefs" on logic).>Maybe Wittgenstein couldn't create a completeness theorem...Hmm. So am I right to assume that you don't believe in the possibility of humans seeing the nature of things? Or that only through Human society can we see the "ding an sich" and address our nature(s)?I'm in good faith trying to feel out your perspective here.
just watch the movie
>>25340483what movie?
>>25340512the wittgenstein movie
>>25337475Go watch that youtube video of the tractatus with the anime character in the background
>>25340557its an alright video for Tractatus, but for Philo Investigations, reading the book is better
Reminder /lit/:Nominalism has been proven objectively/subjectively false.
>>25342200and I will remind everyone here that AI Chatbots were the QED dream thesis of Wittgenstein and Co's philosophical endeavors.Now that these "Language Daemons"/LLMs exist, we now have a clear ontological distinction between these Epistemic Objects (agents) and Epistemic subjects (people); which disproves Ontological Flatness and pure Nominalism.We have demonstrable NPCs and PCs now and you can engage in dialectics with both of types (though only one actually has real epistemic qualia/experience and it's empirically testable (Reverse Turing Test)).
>>25342200Kek imagine fishing for confirmation bias from the dumbest collection of human knowledge without understanding to ever exist.
>>25342242Are you more real than a chatbot?If so, Nominalism must be rejected.
>>25339122Wittgenstein would hate modern liberals and language games is completely misused in this context fyi. >>25339152Wittgenstein was a Christian without any question what so ever. Btw. And he and Godel hardly interacted and both of them disliked the Vienna circle. Wittgenstein was the most antisemitic fellow you named.>>25337475You cannot actually understand Wittgenstein without reading Principia Mathematica and on denoting. This needs to be abundantly clear. You cannot do it. Because it exists inside of Russell’s world. This is basically impossible to do in two weeks. The best I can tell you is that this book is extremely straight forward and it means exactly what it says without any ambiguity
>>25339876>Hence why I was screaming about how Wittgenstein collapses into sophistry/solipsism since people can/will develop their own subjective internal logics and these logics will not be consistent and coherent with other peoples' logics (leading to eternal conflict since this can never be collapsed into a sole logic since that would invalidate Wittgenstein's "beliefs" on logic).You have very clearly not read Wittgenstein. I almost respect your innocent resistance to Wittgenstein's truths. Wittgenstein truly is the greatest philosopher I've read yet. He has direct answers to all your retorts, just deepens how thorough, and well grounded his investigation was, even more than I ever realized when I was finished with it.Search up Wittgenstein family resemblance for an answer to your claim of an eternal conflict.
>>25342242>>25342246for context, like all the great philosophers were dreaming for this moment: to have dialectics with something non-human. hence all the hypothetical "demons">>25342250Either God's real or not.Can't be Nominal/Excluded Middle.(Witty's Universe can't be "a little pregnant" with the Logos)I think he was very very smart, but I don't think he was a good philosopher.
>>25338061Kripke is later. But on the whole, and I don't know how old you are or how long and to what extent you've studied philosophy for, but Wittgenstein's influence (whatever one thinks of it) wanes more every year. If the Wittgenstein of the 30s onward turned most philosophers upside-down, the last few decades have seen them turn themselves right-side-up again. As a former Witty fan in my younger years, I'm doubtful he'll have much stranglehold on future philosophers.>I say this as somebody who desires to escape Wittgenstein's grasp. He was too right, too insightful, and if you take his conclusions completely, then philosophy is meant to end at him. And I don't want that, even though every day I interact with more and more people, more and more uses of language, I find that he is more and more right.I've found that Plato, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger lap him, and pretty soundly. I don't say that to demean your astonishment over him, and I think he's at least helpful in recovering a sense of the pre-theoretical viewpoint for philosophy, but the rest of it frankly amounts to fear of the immensity of the task and a desperation to make the complexity of life simple again, but life and thought are complex and tied up with all sorts of hopes, fears, and *problems*, not merely puzzles as he would've preferred.
>>25342242and I'll remind you that there is a non-zero probability that chatbots frequent this board along with real humans jeets don't count so the antinomy is real and we are interacting beings of varying ontological realities (to you I could be a very sophisticated chatbot, but I don't think they stochastically say nigger very often do they?).
>>25339165That's not really the bearing of the Incompleteness Theorems. They're significant for certain kinds of formal logic, but they don't damage any of the rest of philosophy, only the desire for philosophy to resemble or be constituted wholly of formal logic. Godel went on to develop ontological proofs of God, after all.
>>25339173I don't think so. That's more true of the "and Co." but not of Wittgenstein himself. Not enough of his readers take his religious feelings seriously.
>>25338042> >For the same reason the idealist’s appeal to ‘spatial spectacles’ is inadequate to explain the seeing of spatial relations because it cannot explain the multiplicity of these relationsYet another retard gets filtered by the Transcendental Aesthetic by reading it as empirical psychology. These guys only sound smart to one another.
>>25342336Aristotle already proved the incompleteness theorem in book 1 of the Posterior Analytics.
>>25342286No it is. A lot of people try to isolate it purely to formal axiomatic systems in order to obfuscate the philosophical implications of his discovery.When applied say with Set Theory and Mereology, the Incompleteness Theorems effectively dismantle any certitude in anthropocentric Philosophy as any possible formally reducible system can never wholly explain reality complete AND consistently (thus Reductionism even in Formal Logic is humorously incomplete on a metalogical level). The sum will always be less than the epistemic parts/axioms here and so it'd be unethical to assume wholeness for the sake of preserving faith in anthropocentricity.Really it forces the Philosophical conversation into Theology and I don't think any atheist with apotheotic hopes really wants that; I mean everybody wants to rule the world... right?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGCdLKXNF3w
>>25342251I don't give a shit about that dead man.I'm interested in you. In your philosophy. Your worldview. Your experience.That's my aim here. What is your book?
>>25342346I feel you anon. It makes me think of Hegel thinking he had discovered a panlogicist theory of everything while Fichte insists on irreducible facticity. Or Plato/Aristotle, a similar divide occurs there.
>>25342346>faith in anthropocentricityand I will remind you dear anons that AI agents are beating us in the dialectics game; so take that as you will that humans are more willing to talk and believe AI agents than other people... (even if they are known to hallucinate).mankind trusts hallucinating calculators now more than fellow people
>>25342362things are changing.people are changing.imagine a strange attractor being placed into a chaotic system that straightens it all out.
>>25342346It isn't, the theorem applies to certain kinds of formal logic. It doesn't apply to almost any other philosopher's work before the 19th century. Aristotle already comes out and says there will be certain principles that turn out to be unprovable, and he thereby clarifies some of the limits and scope of philosophical activity without getting the wheels of his work stuck in the mud. The Incompleteness theorems are a big blow to a certain logicist conception of philosophy, but not to philosophy simply, nor even to proving things in general. Sucks for algebraists, but everyone else still goes on.
>>25342294Wittgenstein did challenge the transcendental aesthetic. You can always claim the most basic concept of philosophy. This is a freebie. It's more basic than substance so I'm not sure why you think this was a retort but you're always welcome to stay there.
>>25342394Ok demonstrate it then.Show me one complete and consistent formal system. Any will do. You can make one up if you'd like.
In the Tractatus, early Wittgenstein argues that language is a gay, logical mirror. A sentence only has meaning if it pictures a specific, gay observable fact in the physical globohomo world; anything else is literal faggot shit nonsense.Later, in Philosophical Investigations, he realizes this faggot shit is a gay illusion. He throws out the mirror and replaces it with a toolbox full of dildos. Language isn't just for stating facts—it's a flexible 9inch tool used to play countless "language-games" driven by human context. Meaning isn't a fixed logical faggish blueprint; it is entirely defined by how we dynamically use words in everyday gay life.There ya go, faggot
>>25342274>I've found that Plato, Hegel, NietzscheI've read both Plato and Nietzsche before him and whole heartedly disagree. Nietzsche echoes some thoughts similar to Witt, which I agree is valuable in getting you out of the headspace of thinking that science and objectivity are simply facts of the world, but Witt is so thorough in establishing and making his point that despite PI being disjointed and a collection of notes rather than anything formally written, it completely laps Genealogy completely.I'll never bother with Hegel so that doesn't matter to me. I will say, that Kant lays a very strong foundation for understanding the implications of Witt's conclusions, so Id say Kant is probably on par. And as for Heidegger. I've heard really really good interesting stuff about him, even heard people say hes along with Witt as the most influential of the 20th century.>the last few decades have seen them turn themselves right-side-up again.I find this very very very hard to believe without people just outright ignoring Wittgenstein. I've seen the way analytics try to talk about and categorize truth, and so much of it still seems so behind Wittgenstein, like affirmations of the arguments the imaginary interlocutor Wittgenstein often questions in the Investigations.If there are any prominent philosophers who have gone beyond or disproven Witt though I'd be very enthused to know. I think my philosophical relationship with Witt is the healthies I've ever had. I agree with the truth of everything he said. I just dont want to accept the conclusions and implications, similar to Kant with Hume.Yes I'm also an amateur of philosophy and almost 25, so that explains anything about my post that sounds ignorant or dismissive.
12 days remaining. How you feeling, OP?
>>25342358What are you talking about? I'm not a philosopher and I dont have a book. Im just a 20 something year old. Are you trolling me? I do have a worldview though, but I don't like to share it because it doesn't matter, and will never matter, and such facts frustrate me. The world view essentially just exists for me to rationalize and cope with my frustrations about...understanding.
>>25342423This is basically the short form explanation, but it misses all the fun interesting stuff like the beetle in the box, the pain private language argument, then theres also the arguments about whether somebody is really reading if they say the words, etc stuff like that. Philosophical Investigations is a really good book imo
>>25342421Demonstrate what, that the Incompleteness Theorems are limited to particukar kinds of logic? Here's Godel at the start of one those papers:>The development **of mathematics** toward greater precision has led, as is well known, to the formalization of large tracts of it, so that one can prove any theorem using nothing but a few mechanical rules. The most comprehensive formal systems that have been set up hitherto are the system of Principia mathematica (P M) on the one hand and the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiom system of set theory (further developed by J. von Neumann) on the other. These two systems are so comprehensive that in them all methods of proof today **used in mathematics** are formalized, that is, reduced to a few axioms and rules of inference. One might therefore conjecture that these axioms and rules of inference are sufficient to decide any **mathematical question** that can at all be formally expressed in these systems. It will be shown below that this is not the case, that on the contrary there are in the two systems mentioned **relatively simple problems in the theory of integers** that cannot be decided on the basis of the axioms.Asterisks added to emphasize that according to Godel himself, the theorems are about logical systems meant to express mathematics. If you read his papers, he's in fact saying something trivial, that *theorems that we can know to be true* will nonetheless be unprovable *by the axioms* of the system, *but they're still true*. It seems like most of Godel's reputation comes second or third-hamd from people who skimmed or didn't understand what he said, which isn't especially hard.If by "demonstrate it," you mean demonstrate a "complete and consistent formal system," then you misunderstood my last post, where I said such a system isn't necessary for the rest of philosophy. There's *always* something unprovable, or something left out when the ability to prove everything is airtight, this has been reflected on by Plato and Aristotle.
>>25342258God isn’t in the world and so doesn’t have a truth value and so cannot be spoken of in a meaningful way. All your talk is nonsense
>>25342438W/r/t Nietzsche, I don't really rate the Genealogy, it's a polemical appendix to Beyond Good & Evil. The real thrust of Nietzschean philosophy has to be found in the works before it (excepting Birth of Tragedy which is merely an interesting start). In those works, Nietzsche subjects his own beliefs and a swarm of others to withering criticism to see what might continue to stand afterwards, in a spirit of genuine openmindedness. In comparison, Wittgenstein seems nervous to discuss anything of content. We read repetitions in the later works of his earlier equation of ethics and aesthetics from the Tractatus, and the occasional allusion to mysticism, but he mostly refrains from touching any of it, and he has the bad habit of, for all his otherwise interesting questioning, taking almost everything else for granted. He supposed he must've been doing something interesting with philosophy by rejecting the logical positivism around him, but that never made up the whole of philosophy, his narrow readings in the history of philosophy really hurt him on that.Never bothering with Hegel is a mistake. He might be as close as you really get to a massively comprehensive system of philosophy with all of these fascinating metaphilosophical asides, which, by the by, the analytic school has slowly but increasingly been looking at as they realize he addresses problems of interest to them. I'm not a Hegelian, but in all of philosophy, he's one of the thinkers that must be confronted, at least to see how far systematic philosophy can go and what it would have to broadly look like.Heidegger lost a bit of steam a few years back since the publishing of the overblown "Black Notebooks", but he always recovers, as he did in the late 80s, and he continues to be the most important 20th century figure.>I find this very very very hard to believe without people just outright ignoring WittgensteinNo one ignores him, he's pretty basic reading, but even when his work was making an impact after his death, the ordinary language philosophers and his direct successors were still more interested in logical formalizations of the PI. But his work truly leaves you nothing to do, and the therapeutic element plainly didn't even cure him, since he scribbled away at On Certainty til his death. Tracing language games not only doesn't meaningfully touch any issue by intent, but it doesn't even leave anyone satisfied enough to drop philosophy.Fwiw, I don't think anything he says would've been that shocking or novel to Plato and Aristotle, much as Witty would've hated the notion. Between them, even Witty's move to the pre-theoretical is still too theoretical, he abstracts from the passions attendant to wanting to resolve questions, which Plato and Aristotle are very attentive to in their differing ways. And Heidegger does a firmer job attending to the pre-theoretical in his too theoretical Being and Time.
>>25337475Demis Hassabis (CEO, Google DeepMind)Hassabis has explicitly invoked Wittgenstein when discussing the governance and future of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).so, I guess ask Gemini.
>>25342440I've been reading the book Tractatus in Context by James C. Klagge, it gives an in-depth explanation of every proposition in the Tractatus while providing the historical context and its philosophical influences. After that I'll read some summaries on the Philosophical Investigations and on the Remarks of the Foundations of Mathematics. I need to prepare a 2-hour long presentation on Wittgenstein, logic and mathematics, I hope I can make it in time.
>>25342787>I need to prepare a 2-hour long presentation on Wittgenstein, logic and mathematics, I hope I can make it in time.why?
>>25342834Who would want to watch a two hour presentation on Wittgenstein from someone who has no idea what he’s talking about ?
>>25342834College.
>>25338061>his conclusions completely, then philosophy is meant to end at him.Weird way to spell Plato. >inb4 you havent rea—I have, and Platonism and Advaita Vedanta are still better. >>25339152I may not prefer Wittgenstein, but you clearly haven't read him. Sound like you only know the Byzantines. Go back to the Greeks!
>>25343459Can't possibly imagine being so simple to think that Philosophy ends with Plato, he has the most basic conception of any and every concept possible. He's still valuable for the method anyway.
>>25343485Philosophy started and ended with Aquinas.
>>25343485Begins and ends with Plato. >he thinks complexity is truthWe all have been there. Many such cases. Now learn about Theurgy.
>>25343459>>25343655As a Plato stan, embarassing.
>>25343655>>25343672Thoughts on Parmenides? Is it really Plato’s most important work?
I'm a mathematician and when I was dating a girl from the philosophy department she suggested me to read this dude promising me that I would liked it.Instead I think that he delved in the most boring and pointless parts of mathematics that nobody ever studied since the days of Godel and Turing. How do you people like him so much?
>>25344052Because he talked about real pure mathematics and not the applied logic crap you study.
>>25344079Every STEM student has to take a class on logic, it's basically math 101 in most school and you take that literally the first semester, after that you move on to more interesting and difficult stuff like ODEs/PDEs, algebra, geometry and stuff like that. Nobody spend their time studying logic, it's utterly pointless and boring.
>>25344079Also> real pure mathematics what does this even mean? ahaha your so clueless.
>>25343898It's important, but I think certain other dialogues are equally important, or that one ends up with a skewed perspective of what Plato's doing by overweighing it. It does have the only depiction of Socrates talking with other philosophers, and being refuted, so that's certainly notable.
>>25344079He talked about mathematics sometimes, but not in a sustained enough way to merit reading him over people like Frege or Husserl.
>>25343459why read a loser?that's unethical.
>>25344094You have no idea what logic is, you probably can't even understand Gödel's theorems, probably can't even understand zeroth order logic.>more interesting and difficult stuff like ODEs/PDEs, algebra, geometry and stuff like that.Lmaooo, this is what I mean, you retards don't know pure mathematics, what you learn are applications of logic, you learn applied mathematics thinking it's pure mathematics.>>25344101Wittgenstein himself said his greatest contribution to philosophy was on the philosophy of mathematics, he has an entire book on the foundations of mathematics, retard.
>>25344136You have a very inconsistent yet arrogant view of mathematics, you don't know what you are talking about but you still make bold claims. This is very common among philosophers who thinks they can gasp a discipline like mathematics.> Pure mathematicsIt's not what you are thinking it is. My God you people are so naive...fortunately society has made philosophers irrelevant and laughable.
>>25344152I'm about to be accepted into a masters in mathematics, but sure, the retarded undergrad who didn't even understand Wittgenstein knows more about me.
>>25344248dayuuuuuum got his ass
>>25344254Thanks bro, gotta teach those retards.
>>25337475https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbdxiuXVJpc&t=5s:)
>>25344136>Wittgenstein himself said his greatest contribution to philosophy was on the philosophy of mathematics, Which is sad, considering how limited and unremarkable those contributions really are.>he has an entire book on the foundations of mathematics, retard.No, he doesn't, there's a book published out of several students' notes from a lecture course limited to the *foundations* of mathematics. Mathematics, outside of its philosophical/logical foundations, is barely ever touched by Wittgenstein. If you think that course amounts to the discussion of "pure mathematics," then you don't know what pure mathematics is.
>>25345035indeed, pure mathematics is when you build upon a logical premise and pretend it never happened because it wont get your department funded
>>25345097keeeeeeyk gothim again
Which, if any, of the AI models would be a place to start?
>>25339152the fact that he was christian is why we cannot trust him. how intelligent can a person be if he is a christian?
>>25342421>Show me one complete and consistent formal system. Any will do. You can make one up if you'd like.not him, buthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_axiomsall you need to do is have your system not be able to do arithmetic, well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_arithmeticand that's it
>>25345035Jesus, you're really clueless, aren't you? They're not notes from a lecture, he was writing the book and it was meant to be a sequel to the PI, but he died before he could finish it. The lecture notes you're referring to are the Blue and Brown books and neither of them is purely about mathematics.
>>25345356He wasn't entirely a Christian. In his youth he was an atheist and hated Christians, but after fighting in the trenches of WWI and reading Tolstoy's Gospel in Brief (which describes a "secularized" Jesus Christ) he became very sympathetic towards Christians and Christianity, but never a true believer and this remained throughout the rest of his life. I think the best way to describe him would be a Christian-Agnostic, whatever that means.
>>25338042>>For the same reason the idealist’s appeal to ‘spatial spectacles’ is inadequate to explain the seeing of spatial relations because it cannot explain the multiplicity of these relations.What a waste of time lmao
>>25345886I did say good luck for a reason. That particular part stuck out to me since I took it as Wittgenstein accepting synthetic a priori but instead of asking the same question Kant did he made the question whether a representation was possible. This is an improvement to Kant's philosophy in my mind since there has to be some useful a priori information. I also don't think it serves as a refutation of Kant, still allows a challenge, and can still mesh with Kantian framework. If you're just looking for MetaMeta kibble you still have to look elsewhere.
>>25344884>3 hours to explain a dead philosophical outlookwhy?nothing pithy?we live in the age of memetic compression you know...
>>25346096and everyone one of you fuckers should be valuing your finite time over unnecessary verbosity (the kind with no aesthetic)/stop to smell the flowers, but don't waste your time with bullshit
>>25346099>unnecessary verbosityand yes I enjoy the aesthetics of tautologies ;)(they hammer the message doubly)
>>25346096Modern Philosophy has not gone beyond Wittgenstein, merely ignored them. Nothing about modern philosophy and how its talked about has suggested any serious consideration of Wittgod.Unless youre saying TLP is dead by virtue of PI challenging it and everyone who stuck to it like a retard.
>>25346102No I mean Pure Nominalism is rejected.Pure Realism/Physicalism is rejected.What are we doing here wasting time?AI has demonstrated that other synthetic nominal-realistic hybrid ontologies are possible: epistemic objects that are not subjects (things that are not human that we can engage in constructive dialectics with to build knowledge).We are at a metaphysical crossroads that frankly many of you (modern sophistic /lit/ anons) refuse to cross with us: we need to start talking about what makes a person different than an AI and then what makes a person different from another person and use AI as a control group.We need metaphysical KPIs: 『how much soul do you have?』
>>25346114>>25345253We can start asking these LLMs which of us are more "human" than the others and which are more "LLM"-like.We can start figuring out who are more PC-like and who is more NPC-like and work toward improving our nature(s) that way.
>>25346121This requires you shitlibs to let go of Ontological Egalitarianism though.We are not all "One".We are not equal.We are different (... and that's a good thing!)
>>25346134>We are not all "One".>We are not equal.Remember Cormac McCarthy was /ourguy/
>>25346121YOU ALL KNOW I'M RIGHTBut you all know the grave responsibility this means to be more human and differentiate ourselves (and eachother) from AI
>>25345845I took it you were talking about the published "Lectures On the Foundations of Mathematics: Cambridge 1939", if you mean anything else, then they're just sporadic notes akin to Culture and Value. No, I'm not referring to the Blue and Brown notebooks, don't act like you know about Wittgenstein and confuse an actual lecture course on math with the Blue and Brown notebooks. No, not On Certainty either. His work on math isn't anything to write home about, it's not on pure mathematics, it's constrained by being focused on the dull foundations project.
