A problem

[u/finiannn]

Just read some of “lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology and religious belief” (some is enough— we know this by some people being nice etc !) I think he is right in quoting speech but not right in quoting people because a person might definitely say it, as the person speaking is also definitely saying those things, therefore, as a result there is no problem in him writing what they said— it is very convenient, it makes the only reasonable thing for him to do be what he wants to ask from them, at most, because it’s not the least thing to do whenever possible. So my problem would be that he wasn’t able to know what people say some of the time all of the time, since he knew how to use the speech that people use all of the time, he did use the speech people use fortunately— he had a point— but I don’t think he respected the speech people use, I think he saw it as useful information , now, this is in good regards to paperwork and documentation being another thing not a whole big thing— as in, he knew how to include communication, but that inclusion, was , I think, completely unavoidable as he completely understood what people said, this is harmful; it makes the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic look like everything at once. Wittgenstein was willing to communicate and the willingness wasn’t specifically fatal; it was able, but he didn’t exactly show compromise or compassion because there is a lot of comfort in knowing what people say all of the time— he was completely honest but he didn’t know how to behave—if knew what people say some of the all of the time it would show rather than what he did being a showcase.

[u/0ephemera]

why should he be blamed for that if it wasnt even his research topic?