you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

I’m not saying he’s wrong.

But logic is as bad as not logic if you actually wanna get Vajrayana Buddhist about it.

Let’s just agree to leave it at Breathe and Allow things to Pass.

[–]proc0 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Please explain, if you don't mind.

logic is as bad as not logic

this is a logical statement

[–]beermeem 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Yes it is.

Read Wittgenstein.

[–]proc0 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Sure, I've been wanting to study his works but haven't gotten around yet.

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

As like a moon, he is a harsh mistress.

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

What do you want to know.

[–]proc0 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Which of his works is a good starting point?

[–]beermeem 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I would start with On Certainty.

The “problem” with Wittgenstein is that his “major” work Tractatus, he completely backtracks on. But dumb people still adhere to it.

If you start with Tractatus and the brown book, you’ll be lost forever. You have to read him backwards. On Certainty, then the Blue Book. Then, if you want to understand dumb people, go back to the Brown Book and Tractatus. It’s truly brilliant. You’ll never argue on the internet again.

[–]proc0 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent, thank you.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

But reading a book means I'll have to get off the Internet!!!