And? Is that it?
But who doesn’t know that?
I might be, if I knew what it meant.
A cursory google search yielded a string of far-right christian info, which is probably not pertinent …
But even if I did, I wouldn’t be able to answer your question cos I can’t know something, know that I know something, and know whether I am this something all at the same time, after all …
Unfortunateley, the far right has co-opted Werklempter’s work. He would surely disapprove, but it has gotten him some undeserved ill-repute. He is probably the most misunderstood of all philosophers.
But don’t let W’s aphoristic style throw you. It’s the meaning behind the meaning (that is, the meaning of the meaning) that really means something.
Which is something I learned from Werklempter.
Know what I mean?
Not particularily …
Perhaps I’m slow.
Or there’s nothing to understand.
But that’s his point! We must understand that there is nothing to understand.
.
Er, um, ahhhhh…No comment.
carry on . . .
I missed something, didn’t I?
Damn Wonderer and his PMs!
Thanks, ugly. Usually, the threads i start on Werklempter prove popular.
You might have missed something, yes.
Well that was 15 minutes of my life wasted.
Well done.
Damn that Google.
Wittgenstein:
Not that I’ve read his work, just found it an interesting quote that I thought went along somewhat with this post.
Anybody agree/disagree? I don’t know what he’s getting at.
Wittgy was heavily influenced by Werklempter.
I could tell. They are both confusing the hell out of me.
The statement is false. I know what I am thinking - I am thinking that the statement is false.
Using his special and as far as I know only skill, Wittgenstein manages to sound brilliant by making false claims in such a bewilderingly pretentious way that he actually convinces some people he means something. In that, he bears resemblance to Ernst Werklempter, although the latter sublimates this technique into an actual style.
Again - Werklempter’s influence pervades all of modern philosophy. Even bad modern philosophy.
Well, yes, possibly Wittgenstein becomes readable when seen as a Werklempterian. I had not thought of that.