>>8020The funny thing about Wittgenstein is that he spent his later life saying "I didn't get it right" and everyone moved to say he solved philosophy then and there. It's crazy really.
I could never wrap my head around the person who is that quick to give over their brain to a thought leader. It's not that I'm some defiant personality that has to be argumentative. I'd love it if someone had all of the answers. Every time someone presents this system where they have all of the answers, it is the most flabbergastingly stupid shit. It's never a system that pertains to the world I see every day and have to live with. It's not even an indicator of what a total system would be. It's just "the system is never wrong" and a demand for slavish devotion to it. That way of thinking has been around in some form since forever and it's never worked. It's also been known since ancient times that this "total system" doesn't work for the same reasons I can figure out on my own.
Really though I don't understand the obsession with making knowledge trivial and reducing it to self-serving koans and sayings. I get why there are people who do this, but the world has always presented to me as a very large assortment of premises, all of which point to an underlying reality that has nothing to do with what I know or any linguistic conceit. The way of thinking that can mandate that we're obligated to respect the "total system" is very new, but the root causes of this disease are very ancient. The longer it goes on, the more insufferable it will be and the more it will throw lies at everyone to make them accept it.
As far as I know, no credible philosopher in history invokes the "total system" and insists it's true no matter what. Even someone as disgusting as Heidegger has his line of reasoning regarding the world and the power of making such statements. The German ideologues knowingly lie and believe that the essential act of lying invokes power. It's never worked for them, but it is a system that perpetuates itself and answers certain questions about the world. It can be done where the universe is viewed as a totality and that totality is functionally a clockwork (even if you're not allowed to say it's a clockwork, but all "totalities" necessarily imply a clockwork universe).