3 ms·

Again, unable to defend Wittgenstein's work on its merit.

• ineedasername 7y ago
  Hardly. You betray an inability to focus on the more narrow issue in this comment thread. See my other comments if you want a defense of some of his work; I won't rehash mine and others' comments on the matter here if you can't be bothered to read the wider discussion. If you disagree with those, fine, that's okay, we can both reasonably have different opinions. But your claim that such are not presented, either by me or others, shows your own faults, not anyone elses. The issue in this particular thread that I am addressing is much more narrow: that of content density and value. And on that front, it is you who have failed to present a cogent reply.
  • freyr 7y ago
    The article makes a case why Wittgenstein is overrated. OP reduced the article to: "Anything that is complicated is not worth understanding," which is disingenuous. The article isn't deep or academic or profound, but isn't deserving of a straw man attack. And that's my issue with this thread. OP, and now you, are accusing the article of being facile while responding with an obvious claim to a straw man argument. If you want a meaningful discussion, relate it to Wittgenstein, and not some silly "Some things that are complicated are worth investigating" argument that nobody in their right mind would disagree with. If this doesn't seem cogent to you, you've probably been reading too much Wittgenstein.