Honestly sounds a bit like WittGod before WittGod. Am I wrong? Im surprised to hear that I dont think Wittgenstein even read any Nietzsche

>>24513644 (OP)
he was post structuralist before post structuralism, more like derrida or Foucault

>>24513670
I heard somebody say wittgeinstein is for people filtered by derrida. Should I read derrida? I just finished philosophical investigations, and honestly, my conclusion is that Wittgenstein is completely right, but I yet reject his philosophy for fundamental reasons why I tried to openly express and debate on here, but nobody could really engage with for whatever reason. Seems that unless its Kant and German idealism, nobody really wants to go indepth on concepts, which is weird because I dont even consider myself particularly well read, and i want to loosely talk about the concepts in these books, so its not like the bar for engagement is that high...

>>24513679
Derrida becomes more complex because of his shitty writting style, his focus is more on language destabilization, signifiers, deconstruction and hauntological meanings behind text. The difference lies that while witt is anti-philosophy, Derrida is post philosophy. Derrida core project lies in trying to show how ideas like stable meaning, metaphysics, presence are always subverted through language .If you want to start you can try reading structuralist like Levi Strauss, or maybe try easier works like Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche (foundational for post structuralism). Foucault order of things and Archaeology of knowledge is good starting point. For Derrida Writting and difference is best starting point as it is easier to read and deals with his core ideas. And Yes, people do get filtered by him but it's better than misinterpreted wittfags

>>24513712
I already plan on reading Genealogy soon. But after that (assuming i read no more nietzsche) should i do focault first or derrida first?
>but it's better than misinterpreted wittfags
what do you mean? im really open to witt criticism right now because his philosophy just destroys meaning by affirming meaning by "natural" (my characterization not his) use

>>24513725
I haven't read Wittgenstein yet, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's no actual conflict (ie. destroying meaning) if you realize that the use is what's stable, the thing itself is what's stable, and 'meaning' of words in their use means that meaning is still grounded, and it's grounded externally to objective reality though use, because the context is what's actually real, not the signifier. you don't find "transcendent meaning" in the words themselves, but in the reality they're used to describe. Is this implied in PI or am I completely mistaken here?

>>24513725
You can’t just “stop doing philosophy” by pointing to ordinary language. That gesture is itself philosophical, it presupposes a distinction between the “ordinary” and the “philosophical. and isn't this distinction itself metaphysical??? one term is privileged (ordinary) and the other excluded (philosophical). Even if rules are repeated as a social practice, each reiteration risks bringing distortion in the rule itself, so his "We just do this" is not stable as his "this" itself is never fixed.

>>24513739
Im too lazy to type all this up organically again if this thread is never going to really take off enough to be meaningfully engaged with, so instead. If your curious on my contention with PI read this
>>24506532
>Is this implied in PI or am I completely mistaken here?
On whether youre mistaken or not, based on my reading of PI. No youre not. The only thing id say is, that im not sure id agree that language is grounded through external reality. But thats a potential source of another contention I have.

Anyway in regards to the beetle in the box analogy Wittgenstein uses. I dont really like the analogy because it doesnt make sense until you completely understand and by into what the entire point of the book is, but he makes sure to outline that it doesnt actually matter whether theres a beetle in the box or not, "beetle" would still have a meaning.

But of course for the concept of "beetle" to even exist at all, there must be some reference to "beetle" independent of the subject.

So basically language (and therefore truth) doesnt really actually need to engage with reality, but i guess exist within it like the background of a play or story

>>24513754
>That gesture is itself philosophical, it presupposes a distinction between the “ordinary” and the “philosophical. and isn't this distinction itself metaphysical??? one term is privileged (ordinary) and the other excluded (philosophical).

Doesnt matter. Wittgenstein would say that these words have no inherent meaning beyond their use, so the gesture isnt necessarily "philosophical" in the way you intend to mean. And at the very least, at the surface level, he would be right, as "philosophy" is essentially used to mean "unique belief system about life" in the modern day. And "ordinary" can very obviously be used any number of ways, but even its vague open way of being used is literally sufficient for this discussion. It literally means "how things are typically already done"

Besides if you actually read Philosophical Investigations, the book is very atypically philosophy, its a number of disjointed analogies, that seem to end prematurely at simply establishing a point, barely exploring it to some conclusuon and its half a "dialogue" with an imaginary interlocutor. Its not even like plato where the interlocutor has a name. Its just an imaginary dude giving standard philosophical contentions for Wittgenstein not even to argue against, but simply question, the dialogue rarely even carries on after that in a directed sense like with plato.

So yes one could say its not even philosophy even in that sense, ignoring ordinary use.

>>24513767
> It literally means "how things are typically already done"
When you invoke “how things are typically already done,” you are not offering a neutral observation of language use. Rather, you are presupposing a shared backgroung, a normative form of life that implicitly frames anything outside it as deviant or excessive. This way of life itself is not stable and will very with time ans space. In doing so, you are trying to construct a silent hierarchy: the “ordinary” becomes natural, self-evident, even unquestionable, while the “philosophical” is positioned as marked, artificial, or pathological. Faggot aren't you by giving a description of linguistic behavior; doing a performative act that privileges one pole while excluding the other. And in making this distinction, you participate in precisely the kind of metaphysical structuring you believe your Wittgod transcends.

Rest of your argument is even more retarded not gonna reply, that's why I hate your lot you guys constantly use mataphysical claims while defending the le anti meta man

>>24513802
>doesn't read
>muh metaphysics from youtube
>has a low bar and still complains no one engages

Don't bother replying.

>>24513802
>When you invoke “how things are typically already done,” you are not offering a neutral observation of language use. Rather, you are presupposing a shared backgroung, a normative form of life that implicitly frames anything outside it as deviant or excessive.
Dude nobody cares. Stop using philosophical words like budgeons. Nobody fucking cares that the fact all living things need sustenance to move and function presupposes living things. Youre not saying anything, youre just naming an expressed thought you dont like with a word of preconceived dismissive relevance.
That is how human beings mostly, overwhelming, normally, typically use words.

Also language is fucking made up, it doesnt need to be justified on any "logical" basis. Nor does reality. It doesn't matter what he can or cannot know about reality, how much or senses do or do not trick us. How much "good" can be assigned to reality. We have to engage with it in the ways our instinct compels us to perpetuate ourselves all the same.

Its so tempting to just sink myself into Wittgenstein's philosophy when I get retarded responses like this that try so desperately to miss the point by masking what is being said, with the use of words in a hyper specific almost completely useless way, because its self serving and private and pretends that language isnt fundamentally a normative thing that exists for the group and social order of the group.

Instead something that can be played with like a toy to be put together and depict whatever you want however you want, which is ironically just as much a flaw of "ordinary" use.

gay