Another Wittgenstein Reveal.

This essay appears to coincide with a more substantial reading of Wittgenstein than that reading which often appears to have bewitched the 20th century into a philosophical basket of misinterpretation justified by the ability of the subject to manipulate meaning — x as this author appears to have apprehended. The point it seems at least some authors are coming upon is that many of the 20th century’s continental philosophies were essentially compulsory public intellectual masturbation, (Did I just write that?? Who was that ??? 😂. Think: 1960’s climaxing in the 1980’s: freedom –> greed is good) the authors of which really had little concern for the actual world beyond what could be sucked out if it for their own intellectual capital, and despite who and what it might effect. As we see now.

Also, it appears that English is not this author’s first language. And I say: that totally fine because one can still understand what he is saying, and because –dude: I write and speak only one language.

— or. The essay was put into Google Translate.

This Wittgenstein’s notion of language is to cleanse the linguistic world, and make it a world of clarity and verification in contrast to a speculative metaphysical philosopher, and his ideal world assertions like Plato’s speculative ideal world which is beyond human empirical articulation and creating a crisis in the understanding of concepts.” From the essay linked.

As Cedric Nathanial discusses also: the effort is for verification of description. Which is kind of another way of saying clarification over speculation.

See also THE PHILOSOPHICAL HACK, the first part.

You can get the ebook of the THE SECOND PART HERE HERE HERESY. The hard copy with be out soon.


3 responses to “Another Wittgenstein Reveal.”

  1. maylynno Avatar

    I just shared it 😉


  2. maylynno Avatar

    I read a part of this essay and it is very insightful, you are right. And it had become an intellectual masturbation and gymnastics lol.


    1. landzek Avatar

      I read it now. Yeah. That’s a good essay. I like that he describes the “rift”. Which I think is kind of the problem: a smudging between worlds as if the philosophers are taking about real things, and as though the “non philosophers” (lol) are really understanding the traditional lineage. Like the difference between conventional philosophy, which is a lineage of traditional linking of arguments, and critical theory which supposes to philosophically link reality and conventional philosophy back together.

      Whereas I’d say that philosophy is the description of what is occurring. Presented for verification.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: