Use is also semantic. Everything is thereofr use less, as you "construct" use, you claim it, its semantics too. But if you think there is a use, more than just the semantic of it, then philosophy is not useless. Its the exploration of exactly that idea: there IS use, this IS means "truth" and philosophy means "love of truth". But ofc if there is no truth, as truth is just a semantic claim, then it hase no use...but then nothing has, and therefore philosophy is as non-useless as everything.

why?

@@Tarnatos14 I’m sorry I don’t have the time or space to fully answer your question. I recommend you look into these concepts through KZfaq or other free online resources.

​@@geolitz2665Why?

why?

How western philosophy began under Socrates and the Socratic method is very much a misunderstanding language. There is even a dialogue about language, Cratylus. But this isn't what Wittgenstein was getting at. Language confuses discourse because it is a plurality of meanings, whereas philosophy as a practice (not an argument) is to find the atomic fact of the case.

@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 But in the same way language is the only door to "fact", as it is the tool to "claim" the fact. So the same tool with what we "explore" facts is the thing which confuses the facts. I think there for: philosophy is an topic of language and a by product of language is misunderstanding (and many others).

@@Tarnatos14 Language as per the Tractatus is a tool used to communicate actually existing states, or propositions. Saying something as rudimentary "Daniel and Tarnatos are discussing Wittgenstein" is a statement that pertains an atomic truth of reality. So there is the language we use to bridge this gap between ourselves, and the thing described as it is. So you have a'-b'|x', where a' is my perspective and b' is your perspective, over x', that is a superposition that a' and b' are existing in. Wittgenstein uses the example of the Necker cube to illustrate this. The cube can be projected in one direction, or another direction, but this is dependent on the respective subjects (a' and b'), but the cube itself retains its own superposition wherein these fixations are drawn out, (x').

This movie confuses several portions of Wittgenstein's philosophy together unfortunately. Think about slapping yourself. You feel pain. Obviously. It's sharp, stinging, it even feels cold at first and then hot. But that entire process is an exercise of Language, you feeling it, and you knowing of it, but beyond that we cannot speak about it because there is not a metaphysical world that holds all of these latent experiences for us. He is saying that semiotics (the study of language as signifying signs of meaning rather than things in themselves) is utterly false. That is however the Tractates Wittgenstein. Later Wittgenstein holds Language was the only existing phenomenon we can know (think about how everything you perceive is in a state of presentation, communicating to the universe as objects of expressed meaning). Wittgenstein is budding against several traditions, Socratic method; post-Kantian metaphysics; Schopenhauerian ethics; and eventually Russell and the Logical Positivists.

@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 "Language was the only existing phenomenon we can know." Yes: but is this not somthing old, the wall of what we can know ofc is the system of our knowledge (be it language or the brain etc.) we never know the world, just our "machine" of knowledge (even Plato exercised this, even if he did not use it for describing his idea of the world), as we never can know: is this part of "truth" or of our way to think about "truth" (is the shadow on the wall the world, or just reflection of the world). This is what even socrates maybe was saying, and J.S. Mill said etc. (there is no Truth a priori) But ofc I would say: Language is the only thing we know about, but it still can be the "bridge" for more, we just dont know, but it is possible. (And therefore we CAN know more)

@@Tarnatos14 Wittgenstein is trying to get out of this idea. Language DOES allow us to know the world, but it just doesn't tell us what that world is, why it is, or how it is. These are factors that go beyond Language proper. You are trying to apply a metaphysical property onto, which it doesn't have according to Wittgenstein.

@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 I dont apply a metaphisical property (or if i did I dont meant to) i just wanted to apply the posibility of teh existance of this property. Therefore it CAN exist and so it CAN be spoken about, if it exist, which is possible, but not definite.

@@Tarnatos14 If you weren't intending to apply metaphysical properties to Language then I apologize, but that is what you were doing. Language, as per Tractatus (because it is differently described in PI, and On Certainty), doesn't give us intuit information about things outside atomic principles. You can say "two people love each other," but you cannot describe what love is itself, only in proximities to what it conjures up in your mind. I ask, what is red? You can tell me things that are red, or explain how colour is produced by the eye, but this doesn't tell me what red is. That is the limitation of Language, the limits between us, our knowledge, and this metaphysical other. In PI, Language is no longer a tool, but a culture, by that he means Language is distinct from linguistic action (or speech acts). Think about it in this way: all monetary forms of exchange are similar, bills, notes, coins, and so forth. A dollar bill and a ruble are both currencies used to express information; but that information differs from place to place, and time. That there is a diffuse of plural meanings that can by derived from similar objects (family resemblance) creates a culture of Language. (This is more fitting as it was Marxist economist Sraffa that inspired Wittgenstein to break with Russellean atomic principle of Language). We, as per the PI, are simply caught up in this matrix of Language, of various objects and facts, that we reduce further to communicate with one another (think onomatopoeias used to convey the sound objects make as embodying those states of affairs. Some cultures even have onomatopoeias for things that are abstract, without physical properties. I can't think of one right now, but a manga I read, One Piece, uses this frequently, like the onomatopoeia for smiling is nika, but don't get me started on that please. lol) We cannot know anything outside of this state because the very means by which we know is also what restricts us. I say, pick up your right arm with your right hand. You can't do it. Or I ask you if you can see yourself see. You can't. That is Language.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jsl2YLugq5isdpc.htmlsi=WeQRSfm55bh5QUFz

youre very ignorant

What kind of pineapple do u speak of

@@devmehta4144 Pineapples contain the enzyme bromelain, which breaks down protein. It causes the tingling/burning sensation when you suck on it. Your stomach acids break it down, so it can't really eat you. Many plants have defences to being eaten.