Misanthropic. — NKBJ

Hmm, that sure is a theme that gets recycled around here a lot.

Sorry you feel that way. :worry:

Ok, Mr. Troll. — S

Pissing contest?

Ah yes, I forgot. I'm the only troll around here. — S

Must I remind you that this thread isn't exclusively about you, despite your frantic attempts to make it about yourself? Sheesh. Give me a break @S.

I'm often proven wrong. — NKBJ

How does that make you feel if I am so bold in asking?

From the intro:

Ludwig Wittgenstein occupies a unique place in twentieth-century philosophy and he is for that reason difficult to subsume under the usual philosophical categories. What makes it difficult is first of all the unconventional cast of his mind, the radical nature of his philosophical proposals, and the experimental form he gave to their expression. The difficulty is magnified because he came to philosophy under complex conditions which make it plausible for some interpreters to connect him with Frege, Russell, and Moore, with the Vienna Circle, Oxford Language Philosophy, and the analytic tradition in philosophy as a whole, while others bring him together with Schopenhauer or Kierkegaard, with Derrida, Zen Buddhism, or avant-garde art. Add to this a culturally resonant background, an atypical life (at least for a modern philosopher), and a forceful yet troubled personality and the difficulty is complete. To some, he may appear primarily as a technical philosopher, but to others, he will be first and foremost an intriguing biographical subject, a cultural icon, or an exemplary figure in the intellectual life of the century.1 Our fascination with Wittgenstein is, so it seems, a function of our bewilderment over who he really is and what his work stands for.

I like.

Thanks!

I really can't say. I do not know the author or anything other than the title of the book and one positive review.

If you like to collect books that's one thing, but if your interest is in reading then there are, in my opinion, better sources, some of them free. — Fooloso4

I've read PMS Hacker, and some others. The book I linked is very critical and technical, unlike others I've come across. What book would you recommend?

I'm thinking of buying this book, let me know what you think about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Wittgensteins-Tractatus-Critical-Exposition-Thought/dp/0631060707#customerReviews

A delicacy I say, a delicacy!

Something about that stinks of male chauvinism. Don't you think?

Or perhaps to stoke the fire. — S

Nah, I'm a content and mellow wallower. Der bee nou evail phrom mee.

Then what was your point? — S

I don't know to raise awareness perhaps?

You should get a cat. — S

No, I talk to myself because I'm a solipsist. You are a figment of my imagination.

I knew you had an appreciation for humour! — S

But, if we are being Socratic, then there's little that either of us knows. So, spare the psychologizing, which never was conducive towards the truth.

I find satisfaction in humour, and mockery is a form of humour. If you don't, then I don't really get you. I have thick enough skin to laugh at being mocked myself. Would good does wallowing do? It doesn't. The cancer is not the cure. — S

Wallowing is a safe and healthy practice. It helps the soul. :)

And it's safe to say I don't even get myself either. I don't think I have an ego.

I don't know, but it was funny. — S

So, you have stated that you find satisfaction in pointing out other people's lack of "resilience". Doesn't that make you some pseudo internet bully?

To tunnel through the mountain leaves you still at its base, a position pretty much like the one you started with! — petrichor

But, I might find something interesting? Like gold instead of a dead corpse on the death zone or littered bottles of oxygen. Hehe.

Uuuuh, errrr, should I quit smoking or shouldn't I? Ohhh, ummmm, it's such a hard decision. Won't someone please help me? Ahhhh, what to do? Life is hard. — S

What's your point here? That I'm neurotic? Hah so be it, spare me the panderings.

No, not good for them. Less psychological resilience isn't a good thing. In fact, it sums up your whole problem in much less words than your typical neurotic ramblings. — S

And, you're the one to say that? Puh-leeze.

Ironic that you say happiness is a pathless land and then suggest that logotherapy is maybe the one true path to happiness! :razz: — petrichor

Yes, it is a paradox. One I don't know how to surmount.

Yeah, and good for them to be snowflakes. As I always say, whatever floats your boat. And, please don't rock my boat too.

Whether it is productive to speculate about anothers psychology is a different story. The only one who knows whether such speculations are true is the person themselves, and even if it would be true, their state of mind may deceive them into denying it is true. — Tzeentch

Quite so. And given this is an online forum, then aren't such attempts quite futile even if done sincerely?

No one minds being told what they're like and what they think as long as it's right. — unenlightened

And here you highlight the problem. When is one right about one's ideas about the other person?

Surely, someone might take offence to it.

Lol, I am not here to silence anyone. Do as thy please.

That's an odd opinion, given that Psychology (granted, that's not the same as psychologizing, but still...) is one of Philosophy's children. — Bitter Crank

This is distorted. Just because psychology is a child of philosophy that does not grant authority by or from a philosopher to expound beliefs or assessments or some such matter in regards to what exactly is human nature.

And I think we can both agree when talk about psychology becomes psychologizing.

Meh

It's not that simple. I have priorities, I have my own place, I have my principles, I have my desires, I have my plans. — S

You know, giving up on all those things ain't all that bad.

Wallow wallow.

And no she isn't. Take that back, or I'll wait until you're all cosy and warm, fast asleep in bed, and then drive a sword through your chest. — S

Nuh huh. If you kick and beat her then she deserves better. I'm glad Oksa is with your mom.

With an understanding that materialistic values tend to be shallow when it comes to meaning, and meaning is an essential facet of happiness, there should be no confusion. — praxis

Well, the Cynics proposed that we do away with ALL wealth and comfort and expose ourselves to voluntary discomfort. Do you think they were actually happy people? Seems like the cool-headed Stoic is at an advantage here.

I agree with most of what you said, I just don't think that the field is level, already. But, I don't agree with the false analogy of there being people with superior genes and all that eugenic bullcrap. If everyone would assume the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, then some unanimous decision could be made about the merit of having a level playing field as an original position everyone would want to start with.

Oh yeah! Well I break my back shifting heavy loads for minimum wage, plus commission if I can be a manipulative son of a bitch, also known as a good salesman. :meh: — S

Ultimately if one wants that kind of slave life, then so be it. I found a shortcut, and am content and happy despite my depression or in spite of it. Who knows these things?

Yes, she is. Sometimes, when she's snuggled up in a little ball on the coach, I give her a kick, because it makes me feel better. — S

Ok, then she's in better hands now.

It is very, very apparent in my workplace, for example. — S

I wen't on retirement (disability) at the age of 25. Beat that.

Her name is Oksa. And she appreciates my sense of humour. — S

Oksa is a nice cat.

I haven't had her back at my place for a few months, and I miss her. — S

What was her name?

Lots and lots of people do. It is everywhere you look, if you know what to look for. — S

You know, I've seen things in therapy that indicate that dominance is intrinsically tied to ego-dom. I shit on that idea because I think it is dangerous to society and anyone interacting with. But, then again I have my issues. And, no, I ain't projecting them on poor you.

Yes, I can read between the lines. You've said your piece, and it has failed to gain dominance over me. You can go back to your wallowing now. — S

I wallow contently. And, who cares about dominance. My cat is more dominant than me. How is your cat doing?

Oh, come on. Be more transparent. You made it with me in mind. — S

That's what you want to think; but, if it brings you satisfaction to your ego, then so be it. It may or may have been about you. And, it was far from a veiled/double standard attack.

I mean common Sapentia, it can apply to anyone on this forum, not only you.

I don't take orders from you, and I find your judgement to be questionable. — S

Since you made this thread about yourself, I had no alternative.

And if you like solving puzzles, then solve a puzzle. Don't make people conform to your preconceptions.

Phew, now time to pop a Xanax.

No, not all about me, but I could see through it straight it away. Anyway, I thought that we had built some sort of connection which I found to be of great value, but it seems you've reacted badly to our recent exchanges. Maybe I will take a step back and leave you be. — S

See and this is where psychologizing ends. Resentment, sulkiness, and grudge-bearing. I think you should be aware of that.

Off I go to wallow now.

Wallow wallow.

No, I said that they aim for the truth. They're my best shot at it. — S

Now, I've been on the internets for a while now, and criticizing a person attempt at aiming at the truth, is like gasoline on a fire. I wish you well.