Hahahaha if you were in my brain you would understand easily why you made me laugh a lot.
I'll still try to explain it to you.
I mostly agree with most of your paragraphs.
Wittgenstein wrote two.
If I understand correctly, you imply that Wittgenstein books (including the tractactus) are of great quality (meaning ≈ of great intellectual value)
Actually very few persons understand the tractactus philosophicus.
Let me contextualize:
Much of "modern" philosophy is totally bullshitesque, no empirism, no intellectual rigor / epistemology, add to this complex subjects studied by people with no knowledge about them and bullshit artists (which is a real skill for selling your books).
In parralel of the unification of science happening in the 20th century, a few philosophers actually remembered that philosophy is the love(Phil) of truth (soph) (which indeed is antithetic to BS and to multiple incompatible theories).
Those philosophers founded analytical philosophy that had intellectual rigor and even made advance in epistemology, study of paradoxes, of logics, and tools like truth tables (used for e.g hardware logic gates nowadays).
They had big results in the foundation of mathematics (especially set theory, e.g the Foundational axiom from zFc) and so they got authority in philosophy in general, even getting recognized by fake philosophers aka bullshit artists.
Wittgenstein was an analytical philosopher along with Russell.
I've read most of the tractactus, at first I espected to learn many things from a book from such an intellectually rigorous man.
And what a book! The tractactus "aims" to answer all philosophical problems...
I was quickly disappointed at the beginning, descovering that tractactus pages were full of nonsense, of words equivocations, of sophisms/fallacies, of BS art.
But by reading more and more I discovered that the tractactus was not an absurd nonsense, it is an hilarious satire of bullshit artists.
It is not even questionable, all the book is full of memes, of trolling.
E.g invalid, ridiculously filled truth tables (and he was an expert at truth tables)
The end of the book is totally clear once you understand that and end beautifully saying that what you do not understand, you must not talk about.
What's even funnier is that most of the philosophical community did not and even today do not understand this is an obvious satire, and think this is one of the greatest books ever.
(btw this really fascinate me this kind of people that have this fascinating and horrifying cognitive ability:
They read totally nonsensical texts (that use figure of speech melted with sophisms), they do not understand that they do not understand, and then call the author a genius, an "intellectual"(post modernism would perfectly fit such a category))
Wittgenstein wrote two. The second refuted most of the first.
You are aware that it is refuted by himself, then how can you call it a high quality book? This make no sense ^^
Btw Wittgenstein had no added value in the philosophical world he has been totally useless and if he never had existed, state of the art philosophy would be unchanged.
The capitalization there suggests that the F in ZFC stands for "Foundation". It doesn't; it stands for (Abraham) Fraenkel, one of its creators.
I don't see any sign that, e.g., Russell understood the Tractatus as a satire. He was pretty good at spotting bullshit and if he took it seriously I would consider that strong evidence against your interpretation.
> Much of "modern" philosophy is totally bullshitesque, no empirism, no intellectual rigor / epistemology, add to this complex subjects studied by people with no knowledge about them and bullshit artists (which is a real skill for selling your books). In parralel of the unification of science happening in the 20th century, a few philosophers actually remembered that philosophy is the love(Phil) of truth (soph) (which indeed is antithetic to BS and to multiple incompatible theories).
This really isn't the case. Analytical philosophy today remains extremely strong on rigor. What many philosophers think they study is how to apprehend the world in a sustainable way. There isn't much focus on cutting-edge empirical facts, since the focus is to develop a framework robust to new possible empirical developments, and there was never a focus on empirical facts throughout the history of the tradition.
> They read totally nonsensical texts (that use figure of speech melted with sophisms), they do not understand that they do not understand, and then call the author a genius, an "intellectual"(post modernism would perfectly fit such a category))
Philosophers don't really care much for such a writing style today. Academic philosophers read past authors for their philosophical content and tolerate the prose because what they seem to say is valuable. Write a philosophy paper like that today and nobody will read you (if you're a student, your professor will fail you), since today's philosophers value the clarity of an argument and don't care much for talking over each other with ambiguous language.
Today's philosophers also don't really naively imbibe the thought of past great figures of philosophy. They are great since they pioneered a very useful mode of thought robust enough to survive the ages, though needing modifications.
Sophy means wisdom, not truth. Verus and ver are the latin root words for truth. They are quite different, especially in the way you are attempting to use the definition to make a point. FWIW.
Wittgenstein wrote two. If I understand correctly, you imply that Wittgenstein books (including the tractactus) are of great quality (meaning ≈ of great intellectual value)
Actually very few persons understand the tractactus philosophicus. Let me contextualize: Much of "modern" philosophy is totally bullshitesque, no empirism, no intellectual rigor / epistemology, add to this complex subjects studied by people with no knowledge about them and bullshit artists (which is a real skill for selling your books). In parralel of the unification of science happening in the 20th century, a few philosophers actually remembered that philosophy is the love(Phil) of truth (soph) (which indeed is antithetic to BS and to multiple incompatible theories). Those philosophers founded analytical philosophy that had intellectual rigor and even made advance in epistemology, study of paradoxes, of logics, and tools like truth tables (used for e.g hardware logic gates nowadays). They had big results in the foundation of mathematics (especially set theory, e.g the Foundational axiom from zFc) and so they got authority in philosophy in general, even getting recognized by fake philosophers aka bullshit artists.
Wittgenstein was an analytical philosopher along with Russell. I've read most of the tractactus, at first I espected to learn many things from a book from such an intellectually rigorous man. And what a book! The tractactus "aims" to answer all philosophical problems...
I was quickly disappointed at the beginning, descovering that tractactus pages were full of nonsense, of words equivocations, of sophisms/fallacies, of BS art. But by reading more and more I discovered that the tractactus was not an absurd nonsense, it is an hilarious satire of bullshit artists. It is not even questionable, all the book is full of memes, of trolling. E.g invalid, ridiculously filled truth tables (and he was an expert at truth tables) The end of the book is totally clear once you understand that and end beautifully saying that what you do not understand, you must not talk about.
What's even funnier is that most of the philosophical community did not and even today do not understand this is an obvious satire, and think this is one of the greatest books ever. (btw this really fascinate me this kind of people that have this fascinating and horrifying cognitive ability: They read totally nonsensical texts (that use figure of speech melted with sophisms), they do not understand that they do not understand, and then call the author a genius, an "intellectual"(post modernism would perfectly fit such a category))
Wittgenstein wrote two. The second refuted most of the first. You are aware that it is refuted by himself, then how can you call it a high quality book? This make no sense ^^ Btw Wittgenstein had no added value in the philosophical world he has been totally useless and if he never had existed, state of the art philosophy would be unchanged.