The article makes a case why Wittgenstein is overrated. OP reduced the article to: "Anything that is complicated is not worth understanding," which is disingenu

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.