Thread 24637460

Life-changing books

>>24637536
How's your valve?

>>24637465
what a pile of shit fuck off

>>24637522
>DEUS VULT

>>24637460 (OP)
wittgenstein's books are so childish.

>>24637774
>18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Yuck!

>>24637536
good answer. most misunderstood book in all of academia.

>>24637868
wtf i love the quran now

Gunna repost my PI criticism

These were my initial thoughts on Wittgenstein after finishing PI:
">>24506467
I understand, his revised arguments in philosophical investigations is almost impossible to challenge. So i dont. My biggest problem with PI. Is that he basically validates the poor ways in which oridinary people use language, simply because "thats just how its supposed to be used". Words sort of dont really mean anything essentially and its all about use and context in a language game. If we take this as true (pretty hard to not to honestly). This essentially validates peoples use of words like "nazi" where they can apply it to people who arent nazis to get the derogatory effecy of implying that somebody is UNIQUELY as bad or close to as bad as the nazis and all the number of connotations and associations that come with this.

My problem with this has always been thats its essentially cheating language. The person that uses words so useless objectively cannot be meaning "nazi" literally. But it doesnt matter because the only way the word can have any SPECIFIC value is to intend to mean it literally and bring out all the things uniquely associated with the word.

And this is EXACTLY right. This is why words dont really have an essential meaning. This is what wittgenstein is talking about being on display I think. Words are just something used to communicate some vague encompassing meaning via use. Words are like "tools" and in this case. The word "nazi" is a bludgeon to hit somebody over the head with. Or a target to be draped over for an arrow to be let loose on.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong? Stupid? Recently coming to this board ive gotten a bit insecure that im actually fairly stupid and can never and will never understand philosphers enough to criticize them, because of all the ways people come up with that some other philosphers like hegel and fichte or whatever are misunderstood because of their fancy elaborate concepts."

I included the entire original reply even the post I was responding to since incase nobody understands what Im on about, I can just refer back to the thread to answer contentions with what I answered and clarified to contentions I got. As a heads up, yes I understand that "Nazi" is context dependent. But the use of the word is for lack of better word "unreasonable" or "unfair" even within its own language game. It doesnt make sense...to me. Everything within the quotation marks is the original post.

>>24638948
he says the same stuff as derrida but somehow anti-pomo autists don't get triggered by him

>>24638955
Should I read Derrida to escape from the problems I have with Wittgenstein. Id prefer somebody just engage with me, because I just cant reasonably tolerate this sort of incoherent almost contradictory valuing. I dont even think it comes from Wittgenstein necessarily, just from how the retarded humans we are, use language.

Bumping because I have the question as >>24638984
I don't want to bother with overly obscurantist books if they're just BS

>>24637620
heh..

Good read if you manage to ignore who wrote it

https://archive.org/details/BehaveTheBiologyOfHumansAtOurBestAndWorst_201812

>>24640015
Very sus book

>>24638948
oh hey you're that retarded high schooler who made a thread because he couldn't get Neetzsche. keep it up, man. shorten your posts and quit insisting on talking like that. either bait the smarter anons by pretending to be more retarded and aggressive, or mention in concise terms a specific idea you understand well but connect it to an idea you don't in a convincing way so someone calls you out. you're speaking reddit when you should learn to speak pseud

>>24640081
dont niggas like this ruin honest lit analysis threads?

>>24638948
>>24638984
People seem to think you can just dive into philosophy because it's written in language. PI and Derrida are very far down the line in terms of why any of what they're saying matters, and what/who they are responding to. You wouldn't pick up a textbook on algebriac topology as a non-maths guy. These texts exceed that level of comparative difficulty

>>24640444
What does that have to do with the criticism? Besides Wittgenstein's point is pretty straightforward, he doesnt use any big philosophical words, and his entire point is to appeal to normal uses of language so he doesnt structure anything esoterically. And he gives all the possible context of what type of person hes responding to by presenting a bunch of "But X is X!" imaginary interlocutors for him to engage with.

The biggest "problem" with Philosophical Investigations that youll notice if you read the book is that he starts and stops ideas very quickly. And he often doesnt give definite straightforward arguments. Often hes literally just questioning the idea of language having any sort of inherently clear meaning, and the idea that it needs to. Aswell as challenging private notions of language.

Why do I reply all this? Because its incredibly suspicious how whenever somebody (me) wants to talk about PI, and question and inquire about it. It seems like people always have some convenient tactic off their sleeve to handwave talking about it. And Im becoming to get suspicious that its because none of you have read it.

nobody reads wittgeinstein thats why

>>24638115
Best post

>>24638115
I have never experienced synchronicity in my life. This book did not change my outlook on anything.

>>24638948
>>24638984
Honestly you're very much on the money about this and the indignance you're exhibiting about this topic is almost characteristic of the same kind of angst that early Wittgenstein was dealing with about language usage. But because of this PI does have something to teach you, in that you believe the ways humans use language is retarded in a way that is almost solipsistic, as if you are the only one to notice how retarded and illogical other people's language usage is -- early Wittgenstein was the same way. Of course all the while using and thinking these thoughts within language, thoughts that are inherently as messy as the language that is their medium. Your moral indignance about the misuse of the word Nazi is not an original thought to you, it's a shared indignance with other people, as conservative threads on X would testify. Of course it does *mean* something "objectively" in the sense that there is an object in the world to which the word definitely corresponds, but there are also very fuzzy boundaries of what constitutes the definition. Was Heidegger a Nazi because he supported them for a time, although he later renounced them? And what we *mean* by calling Heidegger a Nazi changes entirely dependent on the context in which we do it, and thus any definition *is* dependent on context, the word has no fixed single meaning but a family of meanings without defined boundaries.
Go back to TLP if you haven't read it already and see the context of what PI is criticising, which is the most brilliant attempt ever conceived to try to turn language into an entirely clear and logical system in a way that becomes almost solipsistic and thus misses the point of language (to communicate).

>>24641397
But TLP has a point within it that critiques solipsism fairly early on.

>>24641413
What are you referring to? Its most direct references to solipsism are supportive.
>5.62 This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth.
>In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but it shows itself.
>That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which I understand) mean the limits of my world.

>>24637465
>>24637868
NGL I kind of respect muslims more than any other kind of monotheist. They accept that their prophet is a disgusting pedophile, that god is evil, and that the highest goal in life is fighting and dominating others.
They basically solved every single major theological problem in christianity 1500 years ago

>>24641451
you're making value judgments based on nothing since I assume you're irreligious. There is no such thing as "evil" if you're not a monotheist

>>24641505
>There is no such thing as "evil"
Making billions of people, making them not worship you, and then torturing them for not worshipping you is evil
>There is no such thing as "evil" if you're not a monotheist
Buddhism has a stronger moral framework than every flavor of abrahamicism

>>24641397
FINAL FUCKINGLY A REAL RESPONSE, A REAL FUCKING RESPONSE THAT ENGAGES WITH MY CRITICISM HOLY FUCK. I have been trying for AGES. AGES to have some sort of actually meaningful conversation about philosophy on this board and this is the first time anything has come close to SIMPLY ENGAGING DIRECTLY with what I have to say honestly.

Its so unfortunate and sad that I came across this, literally a couple hours after midnight when I have to sleep, so ill have to respond once I wake up.

But THANK you. I appreciate your response. Excited to learn something from this, whether im wrong or not.

>>24641632
Youre a fucking sperg and its obvious to anyone reading your posts.

>>24641451
>monotheist

No religion (or popular one) is actually monotheist. Asks a Muslim next time of prophet Mohammad can hear them, lol.

>>24638948
>>24641397
This is what analytics spend their time on... Yikes.

If you bother to understand this book you'll basically get a real-life equivalent of the glasses from They Live. You'll understand the people around you.

>>24641397
>the word has no fixed single meaning but a family of meanings without defined boundaries.
I understand this. But my criticism is that people dont actually approach language with this fluidity of related meanings and undefined boundaries. Depending on context of course, when somebody calls a particular conservative a nazi, they are invoking a number of things such as "It is justified to deal harm to this individual on such basis of an arbitrarily assigned label" for this. One needs a "defined" boundary, even when there is none. It needs to be pretended as if it is fixed.

This is the paradox I have with language. It is used in a sort of laissez faire way, where if you criticize it in a sort of "above language" manner.

I've said this before, but people want their cake and to eat it too with language. Language must simultaneously be "meaningless" and "fluid". But also must invoke everything associated with that "literal" meaning.

Heres what I mean. A common counter I get when I bring up my Nazi criticism, is that when people online or wherever use "Nazi" they dont mean it "literally". But yet at the same time, they want to invoke all the associations that comes with a "literal nazi" such as "punching a nazi is fine". If someone cannot be a literal nazi, then theres no referred basis to justify violence, in a society that values self defense unless that category of person is "violent".

See what I mean? Maybe I really do have to read tractatus. I figured there was little point because Witt represents the criticism hes responding to often in PI through an imaginary interlocutor, and if he realized the flaw of his attempt in Tractatus, id rather pour my time into PI.

>>24642069
probably most piqued interest book rec in this thread. will read.

>>24638948
Even if according to some theory the word "nazi" had an objective meaning, we can empirically see what it does in discourses. If you told someone that they are wrong about the objective meaning of the word, would it actually change much? You could tell yourself that technically they are wrong, but will that achieve your actual goals?
Other than that you can try to establish your own language games, some of which might be more precise.

>>24642617
Good post but I don't think the Tractatus will help much with that, it's more of a psychological and sociological thing. I think looking at language use empirically is a better approach in general.
I also saw similar phenomena as you describe in other areas e.g. the concept of marriage changed but people still want the same respect as when you could not get divorced. Or people will have a vague, mostly symbolic definition of God but want their moral views to have the same weight as when God was a metaphysical reality.

>>24642654
>Even if according to some theory the word "nazi" had an objective meaning
It might not have to do with "objective" meanings. But rather "tier of meanings". Even in a family relation, there is a head of the house. In that sense the "literal" meaning of Nazi somebody might appeal to to defend the poor and incoherent use of the word Nazi. Might just be a "meaning" either "more well known", "more prioritized", "more preferred", by commonality of use...but no. I dont think thats it. I dont think its commonality of use.

In my judgements, slang is more commonly used than most words that arent literal conjuctions, suffixes, etc you get the point.

In that case, id wager even if not now, that there was some point where the word "grammar nazi" was more commonly used actually than "nazi" at all.

I think the word "literal nazi" gets its "head of the house" tier meaning from the percieved significance with the historical events its associated with, and all the AUTHORITIES associated with mapping out its meaning, scholars, political heads, entire countries etc.

My point is sort of that. We cannot just give meaning to "use". I agree with almost every single thing Wittgenstein says. He truly captures the essence of the way language IS, and explains well some problems of language and how meaning gets imposed that I was prior unable to truly reconcile.

But maybe I dont know there is disconnect, it feels like something is missing. Im looking for something more than just what language is, and what we can know of that, because language also "wants to be?"

I dont know im just thinking out loud at this point.

All I know is that. The use of the word Nazi outlines an incoherence where words cannot mean anything, and nobody really intends to mean anything specific, but theres a clear higher tier of a family of meanings that people will try to commonly appeal to when they WANT to selectively invoke meanings that justify certain actions and behaviours.

>>24637460 (OP)
Republic

>>24642669
>I also saw similar phenomena as you describe in other areas e.g. the concept of marriage changed but people still want the same respect as when you could not get divorced. Or people will have a vague, mostly symbolic definition of God but want their moral views to have the same weight as when God was a metaphysical reality.
Yeah. I think you get what I mean.
>it's more of a psychological and sociological thing. I think looking at language use empirically is a better approach in general.
I've been thinking about this for a while but maybe I need to escape Philosophy then. A past thread made me a bit disillusioned with philosophy to think that its much much closer to religion than I previously thought, for reasons I wont bother to expound here if nobodys interested. But the problem with Psychology and Sociology in my brief experience with University, is that its just too science obsessed. Its so much more concerned with studies, methodologies, and the physicalness of the word that I felt as if I was learning more about what to memorize about the human brain than anything that actually relates to the human mind in actual "use" for lack of better word. Not that nothing was learned about behaviour and thought, just felt disproportionate.

Anyway thats why I asked about Derrida. Since Wittgenstein's mission in Philosophical Investigations is clearly stated as just wanting to give peace to people who agonize over philosophical problems of language and meaning. And I think he succeeded. But unfortunately I need more, there are more and more, new and different ways of meaning being abused. Its hard to be a social creature and simply be content with oneself knowing that nobody really means anything but "use" when everybody is yet trying to mean things as if there is more than use.

>>24642682
I would say that it's mostly perceived authority, from authority figures and being the older definition of the word.
Terms like "objective meaning" or "objective truth" also have a lot of power in discourses but these terms can themselves be seen as parts of a language game.
Unfortunately I have not read Derrida yet. I'm also not 100% sure if Wittgenstein is right (as is often the case for philosophical questions) but so far his views make a lot of sense to me.

>>24637868
i guess i shouldn't be surprised half of this is inaccurate due to the nuance lost in translation but go on king

>>24642770
>but so far his views make a lot of sense to me.
I agree. And thats why I want to escape them. Or else I have to accept this modern reality of perpetual meaninglessness and people blatantly, not just subconsciously BLATANTLY using words as bludgeons and hammers to hit people they dont like over the head with. Yes people have always done this, but "new words" are being created at a rate unprecedented. People dont even necessarily need to appeal to an authority figure anymore. Somebody can say some random retarded shit on twitter and get a bajillion likes, affirming some perspective of use on a word.

Its the fact that in this era more than any, some random individual retard can simply say shit, and if they happen to get enough attention its validated. And its worse that places like twitter with their shitty character limit further discourage nuance and elaboration.

Idk, this is just some thoughts swirling in my mind.

>Unfortunately I have not read Derrida yet.
honestly seems like a lot of people havent to be fair. waiting on a derrida thread to get moderately big

>>24638115
This was a solid read for my mid-wit brain.
It has me really considering that people who see things and respond differently to things compare to me aren't just retards or nerds, they're operating from a different circuit.

Will be reading it again more deeply soon, taking notes and really trying to get the most out of it.

Also started learning to write with my left hand in order to activate the right side of my brain. Might look into Anton LaVey soon.

good thread

>>24638110
>>24637774
Honestly, Thucydides has made more impact on me than any jewbabble Book of Digits 77:14 verse 9-13 paragraph 8371 through word 19 ever could
>All men were killed, women and children sold to slavery {repeat}

Derridative?

>>24643461
Alright Derrida, you may have pulled a technicality on the introduction of literal languages and the destruction of nuances in order to pull a post structuralist move but if we take your approach and expand language to sign systems then you still have to contend with imposed differentiation regardless. You will be back in Levi Strauss territory and since we both know marriage laws are just made up for the purposes of circulation of females I would like to know what sort of difference you can summon to me as it pertains to Marguerite. I can see the similarities about your ocular regions so you are clearly of the homo sort. Let me have a night with Marguerite.

>>24642697
> Its hard to be a social creature and simply be content with oneself knowing that nobody really means anything but "use" when everybody is yet trying to mean things as if there is more than use.
This is very well expressed, and it's sort of a fundamental paradox of being human. I'm not sure it's a paradox that can be solved, but it is one that must be, and is, lived.
Your problem with Wittgenstein as far as I have understood from your posts, is not technically a problem at all, in that you do agree with PI mostly in the essential description of how language means, but it appears primarily to be an ethical one about the uses of language. But there is definitely something to Wittgenstein's early claim in TLP that "ethics are transcendental" and cannot be expressed, at least not in scientific, logical terms or in the kind of philosophy that Wittgenstein was writing. I think later Wittgenstein was in a sense even more quietist when it comes to ethics, because he did not even make imperative or prescriptive judgements about how language should be used (such as the famous whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent) but merely described how language games operated. For both early and later Wittgenstein, responses to ethical questions show themselves through the contexts of art, religion, essentially the realm of the mystical, and, you will learn more about how to live life as a social being by reading The Brothers Karamazov than by reading philosophy.
If you are open to reading fiction, I would potentially recommend The Broom of the System by David Foster Wallace as particularly relevant to your current interests, as it was a concerted attempt to bridge later Wittgenstein and Derrida.

best thread on the board right now

>>24643532
Shameless as always dostoanon. Very well, we can refer to this as dosto's dilemma and sneak it in under the everything is philosophy clause. To say Dosto provides training of sorts for being a social animal is akin to saying if one doesn't wish to pursue thought all the way then socializing is a way to avoid this, or perhaps it could be morphed into a sort of utilitarian style alienation avoidance protocol. Carry on you noble winged creature.

>>24641632
>>24640530
It's not a tactic. You'd just simply be better off reading wikipedia (a shit source) to answer your questions, which seem to be based on an incredibly thin reading

>>24643636
>t. retard that hasnt even read philosophical investigations and will never demonstrate he has because t-then that w-w-would be opening myself up to criticism! oops-

>>24643646
How about the most basic fact that PI was an unfinished manuscript, and was largely assembled from Witti's notes by his students. This poster >>24640530 doesn't even seem to get that much and is critical of "him" "starting and stopping ideas very quickly". Why fucking bother when this anon is literally unaware of what they are reading?

>>24637465
>>24641451
KARA

>>24643532
>If you are open to reading fiction, I would potentially recommend The Broom of the System by David Foster Wallace as particularly relevant to your current interests, as it was a concerted attempt to bridge later Wittgenstein and Derrida.
Interesting, im trying to read Infinite Jest right now, will definitely keept this one next on my radar. If its shorter than IJ, I almost wish I came across it first.
>because he did not even make imperative or prescriptive judgements about how language should be used (such as the famous whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent) but merely described how language games operated.
I broadly agree. But ive always thought of when he explained his reasoning for doing all this as "relieving those who agonize over philosophical problems" to be a sort of prescription. For something he determined to need relieving in the first place or at all. It may not be "objective" in the sense that its for a type of person. But it feels like a prescription nonetheless or close to it atleast.

As for the Dosto recc. I personally I'm not fond of him. The "sinning into Jesus" thing really gets to me as contrived. And people who are okay with being contrived to me cannot make proper judgements, because they can never allow themselves the condition to engage with reality as other than already seen. Essentially all their work will be confirmation bias. Thats just my opinion though.

>>24643667
>doesn't even seem to get that much and is critical of "him" "starting and stopping ideas very quickly".
nobody was being critical of that retard. you cant read learn what quotation marks are USED for.

>>24643681
you're a dumb fucking nigger, you know that?

>>24643678
I made the Dosto rec mostly because of Wittgenstein's fondness for him -- TBK was a major influence on IJ too, of course. You make a very valid point about Dosto, but I wouldn't be too eager to dismiss him on that basis. But it's very good and apt that you're reading IJ, BoTS would be a very good follow-up if you have the time or interest, but IJ is the better work. Lots of similar ideas about the nature of language, solipsism and communication are implicit in IJ that were present in the earlier work but in IJ they are integrated much more naturally and less heavy handedly.
You're right that there's a kind of prescriptiveness still in the later work about the limitations and futility of philosophy, but of course this is in turn made paradoxical by the fact that he is engaging in these questions in the first place. Paradox is a major feature of Wittgenstein's conception of ethics. Important to remember that Philosophical Investigations is an incomplete work, also -- I don't think there's any sense he himself ever could have finished agonising over these problems, so his prescription that others do so is, in a way, self-defeating.

>>24643736
>Important to remember that Philosophical Investigations is an incomplete work, also -- I don't think there's any sense he himself ever could have finished agonising over these problems, so his prescription that others do so is, in a way, self-defeating.
Yeah. Ill make sure to remember that. Maybe dont have to take an unfinished work as such "gospel". I mean I'm already trying to, but everything he says just maps onto my experiences with language so much so, that I likely wont escape his thought till I find somebody slightly more complete who says it better but different.

Appreciate your responses btw man, and thanks for the reccs

>>24642069
best suggestion in thread