>>10894054uh, what? "the eternal anglo"? is this some /pol/ shit you picked up since they're a crypto-/pol/ board?
anyhow the fact remains that i trust wittgenstein, and anything metaphysical you think whitehead has to say is due to him playing with signs in his propositions he failed to give meaning to. it's true -- philosophers deal with these words that they think are real, but in fact they are vacuous social constructs or the vocabulary of meaningless circle-jerks.
the standard comeback is "later wittgenstein said in Philosophical Investigations that..." but their interpretation is similarly biased in favor of not admitting philosophy is bullshit. wittgenstein described the meaning of philosophy as similar to the meaning of playing games or "spiels" i.e. meaningless activities. that is a deep insight, and yes i think philosophy has value in being an educational game one might play, but unfortunately it is only an exercising in throwing around concepts corresponding to signs that have no meaning
