No, the rights of the fly have been infringed by an overzealous individual.

These are grounds for the fly to sue Wittgenstein.

Like every other undertaker of philosophy, Wittgenstein was buried by it, and it will continue to bury those like him. In any case, Wittgenstein was a philosopher through and through - a philosopher who couldn't recognize himself in the mirror, and inspired a thousand other miserable soon-to-be-dead undertakers.

So, Wittgenstein was in contradiction. To borrow a term from Harry Frankfurt, was there a higher order volition (non egotistical) to dissuade others from doing philosophy and instead appreciate the esoteric and mystical that is religion, ethics in practice and charitable deeds?

I feel as though despite the overtones of Schopenhauer in Wittgenstein's early philosophy that he realized that it was his, so to speak, "duty" to dissolve the problems of philosophy, even though he rather failed at this task in my humble opinion.

Including @StreetlightX?

So, Wittgenstein was in contradiction — Wallows

One can think oneself a flowerpot and not be a flowerpot. That's not a contradiction. That's being wrong. In any case, Witty simply had a narrow, thinly pitched idea of what he understood to be 'philosophy'; he may have exploded it, well even, but expunging shadows ain't all that.

Sure, but I've no pretension to declare the 'uselessness' or 'senselessness' of philosophy.

I wouldn't go as far as Banno, although I do think much of philosophy is just bulls***. It's true that Wittgenstein told many of his friends who were inclined to become philosophers, to not do it. He would rather they pursue something else - something more useful or productive.

Philosophers attempt to answer some questions, Wittgenstein attempted to answer most of them, he just didn't give the answer they wanted. One doesn't like to hear that their life work is meaningless mind games. It's only anti-philosophy in so far as answering philosophical questions is anti-philosophy, in that it removes mental knots philosophy busies itself with untying.

If language stems from experiences, and questions are settled through experiences, then there are only practical problems.

People ask, "what is the meaning of life?", or more precisely "what is the purpose of my life?". The very concept of purpose stems from experiences where some object is useful to reach something that is wanted, a hammer laying there has no purpose unless one wants to use it for something, then its purpose becomes to help reach the thing that is wanted. In the same way, one's life has no purpose unless one wants to use it for something, then its purpose becomes to help reach what is wanted. The answer is either obvious, or there is no answer until one finds something they want to reach with their life. The underlying practical problem would be "how do I find something I want to reach with my life?", but there is nothing deeper to it.

Or some might ponder endlessly "what is time?", thinking of time as some mysterious entity that passes or that flows, without realizing that our concept of time stems from us experiencing change. A clock is something that changes, that we use as a point of reference to relate to other things that change, and then we say that a clock measures time as if time was an entity with an independent existence, and then we try to find that entity but there is nothing to find, there is just needles moving or shapes changing, there is just change.

Or often we ask "why?", such as "why is there something rather than nothing?", or "why is there this rather than something else?". Where does our concept of "why" stem from? We see someone do something, and we wonder what drove them to do what they did, what was it that they wanted, what was desired to be attained. Or we see something in a unusual place and we wonder how it got there, was it someone who put it there or the wind or some unknown force? The word "why" summarizes that, attempting to know what was the desire that drove someone, or what was the creature or the thing that was responsible for moving or building or destroying something.

But then when we are asking "why is there something rather than nothing", we are wondering what was the desire or what was the thing that is responsible for there being something rather than nothing, which presupposes the existence of some being or phenomenon outside of our experience with the power of creating everything we can experience, but if the "something" in the question is taken to include everything outside of our experience too then "why" cannot apply to it and the question has no meaning. Just like "what does time smell like" has no meaning, many questions that can be formulated in a language have no meaning, in that they don't relate to anything from which the language was built in the first place. And once all such questions are removed there only remains the practical ones that relate to what we do experience.

Yet, people seem to get lost in his philosophy, instead of focusing on the primary theme of his philosophy; being, the resolution of philosophical problems into senseless or nonsensical problems. — Wallows

If that was the theme of his philosophy then why did he continue? Did he fail to resolve the problems for himself? Was his primary theme to help others solve the problems he had solved for himself? If this were the case then why his extensive private notebooks? Some of these notes were work on books he never published, but others were his way of thinking with his pen.

I really do think with my pen, because my head often knows nothing about what my hand is writing. — Culture and Value

people seem to get lost in his philosophy — Wallows

When you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there. — Culture and Value

To anyone who has majored or is thinking about majoring in philosophy in some institution, isn't Wittgenstein a sort of cognitive dissonance or bittersweet inducing experience? — Wallows

I was attracted to the interpretive challenge, becoming totally engrossed in trying to think along with him, making connections. I take the cognitive dissonance to be fundamental to the pursuit of philosophy. Philosophy can be truly dangerous if one is unable to be comfortable with that dissonance.

I take seriously the following from a draft for the preface to Philosophical Remarks:

If you have a room which you do not want certain people to get into, put a lock on
it for which they do not have the key. But there is no point in talking to them about it,
unless of course you want them to admire the room from outside!

The honorable thing to do is to put a lock on the door which will be noticed only
by those who can open it, not by the rest. — Culture and Value

There are locked doors, rooms we are prevented from entering in Wittgenstein's writings. The first step is not to find the key but to find the lock.

If that was the theme of his philosophy then why did he continue? — Fooloso4

[Psychologizing ensues] And here I have to say that Wittgenstein was motivated by personal issues or perhaps even perceived shortcomings. I haven't read his biography; but, it is common knowledge that he struggled with suicidal thoughts and most probably some form of PTSD after the World Wars.

Basically, I find his philosophy motivated by an existential impetus. Even though it is debatable whether he classifies as a continental philosopher or analytic one, I still find comfort in the mixture of the two that can be found in his philosophy.

Did he fail to resolve the problems for himself? — Fooloso4

Yes, perhaps.

If this were the case then why his extensive private notebooks? Some of these notes were work on books he never published, but others were his way of thinking with his pen. — Fooloso4

Again, maybe they were not meant for publication, much like Marcus Aurelius Meditations were a private diary.

I take the cognitive dissonance to be fundamental to the pursuit of philosophy. Philosophy can be truly dangerous if one is unable to be comfortable with that dissonance. — Fooloso4

Yes, please expand on this.

There are locked doors, rooms we are prevented from entering in Wittgenstein's writings. The first step is not to find the key but to find the lock. — Fooloso4

Enigmatic as always with Wittgenstein.

And here I have to say that Wittgenstein was motivated by personal issues or perhaps even perceived shortcomings. — Wallows

I would say more generally that Wittgenstein was motivated to think. This includes but is not limited to problem solving.

Working in philosophy -- like work in architecture in many respects -- is really more a working on oneself. On one's interpretation. On one's way of seeing things. (And what one expects of them.) — Culture and Value

The solving of philosophical puzzles is related to the larger issue of how one sees things. The puzzlement stands in one's way. But the elimination of the problems is not the elimination of philosophy, although it might mean the elimination of philosophy as it has been practiced by some.

I take the cognitive dissonance to be fundamental to the pursuit of philosophy. Philosophy can be truly dangerous if one is unable to be comfortable with that dissonance.
— Fooloso4

Yes, please expand on this. — Wallows

Socrates was accused of being a torpedo fish, numbing his interlocutors. What he was doing, however, was simply demonstrating to them that they did not know what they professed or assumed to know. This was not the end but rather the beginning of philosophical inquiry. Not having solid ground to stand on, however, can cause vertigo as one stares into the abyss. This uncertainty can be incapacitating for some, as they come to question everything and cannot feel certain about anything. Or they may latch on to something that promises to be the answer.