[d0odk]

Someone who is discrediting all of philosophy shouldn't confuse Wittgenstein and Kant.

Further, Wittgenstein disavowed Tractatus as a failed project and completely revised his approach to philosophy. His most important and influential works came afterwards.

[glenstein]

He disavowed is as comprehensive account of linguistic meaning, but I don't think he regarded it as false or meaningless, only that the full breadth of ways language conveyed meaning was wider than the account given in Tractatus.

[lisper]

> Someone who is discrediting all of philosophy shouldn't confuse Wittgenstein and Kant.

Getting the names confused is not the same as getting the people confused. My poster child for philosophical nonsense has always been the Tractatus. I just somehow got it into my head that it was written by Kant, not Wittgenstein (I've always been bad at remembering names) and I didn't bother to check because I was writing an HN comment and not a paper for publication.

[d0odk]

Okay, but you initially criticized Wittgenstein, the philosopher, not Tractatus, the work. Wittgenstein himself would agree that Tractatus is deeply flawed. He wrote his more influential works later, and they went in a completely different philosophical direction. You're criticizing a philosopher as "pooh-pooh-able" for a work that he personally disavowed and does not represent the positions he is best known for.