There is still another thread about him but it is a different topic.
Explain how this man's work was in anyway good?
Most people understood that logic oversees everything and if they didn't they are idiots.
It seems like he just restates things that everyone knows without adding any content.
which part of his work in specific do you think was just restating common truth
quote the paragraph
>>7380448
I disagree with the quote in that photo. My world is much larger than my language.
Fucking read his works and discover yourself, retard. He literally only published 300 pages of philosophy in his lifetime.
>>7380453
from tractatus logico-philosophicus:
"That there is a general form is proved by the
fact that there cannot be a proposition whose
form could not have been foreseen (i.e. constructed).
The general form of proposition is:
Such and such is the case.
4.51
Suppose all elementary propositions were
given me: then we can simply ask: what propositions
I can build out of them. And these are
all propositions and so are they limited."
pretty much saying:
>Everything already exists
And giving the whole philosophy of things are "discovered" and not "cured"
Everyone always uses this one, and it is a fact it's not even arguable.
>>7380467
why don't you read his works because I already have.
>>7380448
>what is the ineffable
witt just got BTFO
>>7380486
I highly doubt that.
>>7380487
lol
>>7380489
I more highly doubt you.
>>7380493
If you had read even the first five pages of Philosophical Investigations you would know that he added a lot of content to philosophy.
Even reading his Wikipedia page would make you more well-informed than you are now.
>>7380448
>Most people understood that logic oversees everything and if they didn't they are idiots.
No, you are the idiot OP. Witty will tell you why.
>>7380503
are you saying that most people don't realize that logic is everything?
Or are you just hoping that by quoting me and calling this man the nickname of "Witty" will somehow make you look important?
>>7380481
defining what a proposition is isn't actually trivial, but i don't see why you would pick a passage that has no pretense of being anything else but stating definitions.
>>7380448
>Most people understood that logic oversees everything and if they didn't they are idiots.
I'm not sure that this is an idea that's really put forward in the Tractatus. My understanding was (and it's been a few years since I obsessively read all of his stuff) that the Tractatus ends up taking certain pains to show that this is *not* the case, since the most important things (ethics/aesthetics, god, death, etc.) are not overseen by logic. In his letters in the 20s, he calls the Tractatus a fundamentally ethical work, and if his own account of it is worth anything, it seems as if what was so shocking about it was the way it circumscribed logical positivist ambitions to solve all problems by the development and employment of logic.
In some ways, that shouldn't seem all that new to people familiar with the history of philosophy; parts of the Tractatus resemble Kant's first critique in that way, and he had apparently studied the first critique while he was a POW. From the broader perspective of philosophy then, it is perhaps true that he didn't add anything *drastically* new, but his deflation of logical positivist pretensions was an important step in analytic philosophy's history. If anything, it's maybe more astounding that the analytics were so taken aback by it, precisely *because* of its resemblance to Kant. One would've expected them to foresee such a possibility, and Kantianism was in resurgence at that time.
>>7380501
How does that show what you're contending? Surely if start abstracting parts of the overall work, you'll of course find elements already in common understanding. His emphasis of that when understood in light of his subsequent discussion of matters outside of logic are what's important.
>>7380464
If your world transcends language, then saying "my world" is totally meaningless. That's the point - it's unspeakable by definition.
>>7380518
Witty says the exact opposite. That logic does not cover everything, since logic, as in logic as a mathematical system, does not go beyond the world of logic itself. You could argue everything that is, is logical, but how can you tell about what isn't? If you use logic to try and grasp that, what is not a part of “the rule set”, you will fail.
>>7380448
>Most people understood that logic oversees everything and if they didn't they are idiots.
>not understanding the distinction he draws between saying and showing
>thinking that 'proposition' (Gedanke, in German) is simply a declarative sentence
Boy, you're one dense motherfucker. Read some Frege, read some Russell, read some Ramsey and then you will understand the kind of thing Wittgenstein was dealing with when he wrote the Tractatus. If you can't understand what the discussion is all about, then you can't understand one word of the book. Believe me, you're just showing everyone how truly ignorant you are.
>>7380583
>>thinking that 'proposition' (Gedanke, in German) is simply a declarative sentence
Uhh, "Gedanke" is "thought," "Satz" is the word Wittgenstein uses for "proposition."
>>7380501
>Something is itself
Are you aware of concepts (and difference between the concepts) like well formed formula, proposition, syntactic derivation, semantic truth, derivation rule, logical axiom and axioms of a theory written down in logic and and tautology?
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction
vs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_system
etc.?
His arguments make no sense to me.
This is a quote from Wittgenstein calling out Kant's claims.
Explain what the heck he is even trying to say please
>>7380583
Or anyone if you can understand how this is proving anything about Kant being wrong?
>>7380501
You literally do not know what a tautology is, and you do not know a thing about compositionality.
>>7380601
I don't know the problem put forward by Kant, and thus I didn't understand that section. The most important parts of the book are contained throughout propositions 1 and 5. From the 6th onwards it kinda delves too much into mysticism and woo-philosophy.
The problem is that you're taking the book without knowing why it was written. It's like pulling Quine's paper on Two Problems of Empiricism without knowing a thing about the Vienna Circle and the Verificationist movement, it just won't make sense.
>>7380614
Then what do you need before tackling Wittgenstein?
>>7380605
I know what a tautology is in Wittgenstein's use.
It is just something that is valid for all possible domains and cannot be proven wrong under given restrictions. He is saying that because it fits the definition of a tautology it is one.
>Something is itself because it can prove itself
>Something is itself because it is
>Something is itself
that is the only real content in that quote.
>all these people speaking when they should be silent
>>7380618
Frege and Russell.
>>7380448
>Nearly 2016
>Being a logical positivist.
>>7380614
The Two Dogmas is actually fairly accessible. I read it before I read any Positivism.
>>7380626
>>7380637
I know it is, because Quine's prose is that good. But if you are not aware of what he is talking about, a lot of it will just fly past your head and you won't fully understand the raison d'être of the paper.
>>7380618
The two main authors who were on Wittgenstein's mind when he wrote the Tractatus were Frege and Russell. Bear in mind that he was also writing when logicism was still a thing, and Gödel had not put forward his proofs of incompleteness.
I'd say that anyone who wants to study this period of philosophy should have at least a reading and general knowledge of propositional logic (a book such as Theodore Sider's 'Logic for Philosophers' should do).
Then, there are two must-read papers before you tackle the TLP: Frege's 'Sense and Reference', 'Concept and Object', and Russell's 'On Denotation'.
Having read these papers you will get a better grasp of what the discussion was all about when they talked on the topics of meaning, proposition, judgement and logical figuration of the world.
This is a good starting point if you're interested in analytic philosophy. Don't read them to just read Wittgenstein, that would be a waste of time.
>>7380618
Not the guy you ask, but here two cents...
The first book is quite different than the second one - this thread is about the first.
Mini-lecture:
The context is the turn of the century somewhat over 100 years ago, after Frege came up with a (classical) logical calculus including quantifier (with possibly infinite range) and people in analytic philosophy started projects like putting all of math on grounds of symbolic logic.
This is the phase from Wittgensteins kind of mentor Russel (and the problems they cooked up), over Hilbert (who proposed to solve it, which would require a formalization of "algorithm") to Gödel (who did it and fucked Hilbert up) and finally to Turing (who used it to show you can produce code that reads in other code as input).
Today we have the computer because of EXTREMELY academic questions asked by those people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begriffsschrift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine
As the first book includes quite a bit of elaboration of that, but in the language that's being form as the subject is being newly developed and changed for the quest at hand, it's somewhat fuzzy and hard to read. I'd say it's helpful to understand the formal aspect before you read the philosophers who try to put the real world in context to this. An online script I like is
http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/notes/logic.pdf
http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/notes/
>>7380680
Thank you so much.
>>7380682
I'm actually going through that the Mathematical Logic book right now. Thank you too.
>>7380688
This guys >>7380682 also knows what's up. Even if you don't plan on learning the mathematics behind the things he pointed out, they are all extremely relevant in setting the stage of the discussion held by Wittgenstein in the Tractatus. So it's probably a good thing to have at least historical knowledge about Hilbert's Program, Frege's and Russell logicism, Russell's Paradox and things like that.
>>7380694
I feel Simpson's book is too compact and unfriendly to people who have their first contact with logic. Check this post out: http://www.logicmatters.net/2015/01/01/teach-yourself-logic-2015/
It's written by Peter Smith (Cambridge philosopher and logician) and it is one of the best guides out there to help you get into mathematical logic. He critiques lots of books, provides great guidelines and will 'hold your hand' while you start getting a grasp of the formal logical structures.
>>7380702
>This guys >>7380682 also knows what's up.
tfw literally living 30 meters from the cafe where Gödel proved his incompleteness theorem
tfw made out with a qt blonde in Boltzmanns old office
My attempt at /lit/ lifestyle
>>7380714
I was just going to post that guide.
I like Smiths book on Gödels theorem, but I must admit that I got insulted when he at one point in the book kinda insulted formalists.
>>7380743
Oh, and I was reading Wittgenstein Tractatus, to a glass of wine, accidentally just 200m away from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haus_Wittgenstein
>>7380714
There is a secret radio recording revealing Hilberts qt voice and accent
http://math.sfsu.edu/smith/Documents/HilbertRadio/HilbertRadio.mp3
>>7380743
>tfw literally living 30 meters from the cafe where Gödel proved his incompleteness theorem
> I was reading Wittgenstein Tractatus, to a glass of wine, accidentally just 200m away from Haus Wittgenstein
I'm fucking jelly. Are you Austrian or are you just studying there?
>>7380777
I'm Viennese. I'll offer a couchsurfing couch to people who want to discuss foundations on any level. Contacts at
axiomsofchoice.org
Though I'm more a physically anti-realist than basically anyone I know personally, and if you see somebody on SE Math proposing some application of paraconsistent logics, it's probably me. I'll be the one pointing out that mass, weight, space etc. are completely (physical) theory dependent concepts, and if you pass to a "more fundamental" theory without them (e.g. I've worked on theories without points in space), you recognize the mere operative meaning
(as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance)
of statements including such concepts (like weight), thus I don't think the truth value concept makes much sense in any way.
Brings us back to OPs premise
>Most people understood that logic oversees everything and if they didn't they are idiots.
Given how many logics there are, this doesn't really work, even after you restrict the applicability to just the descibable world (as in the Tractatus).
I've seen logical pluralism currently being of interest in the context of
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/
>>7380448
>It seems like he just restates things that everyone knows without adding any content.
This is very much wrong. Both the TLP and PI are works highly original and ground-breaking, that's why they have been so influential.
The TLP
>(1) Gives the underlying logical form for language.
Never done before. Russells' theory was an approach, but narrowed to definite descriptions and ultimately wrong.
>(2) Constructs a consistent theory of meaning
Never done before either. Frege's attempt was given in his papers on sense and reference, which applies his work of the Concept Script, but it lead to several paradoxes that Wittgenstein's picture theory of language successfully avoids.
>(3) Derives philosophical consequences of his picture theory of meaning.
The study of the logic of language lead to nowhere else than a study by its own sake, this is, the clarification of some propositions.
>(4) His account on the theory of meaning gives a meta-philosophical argument for the task of philosophy.
Didn't happen before either. Although it was proposed that such should be the task of philosophy, there wasn't a strong argument to endorse such view.
>(5) Makes out of his philosophy a philosophical system
A philosophical system that extend on all philosophy branches happens rarely. Nor Frege or Russell had such thing as a philosophical system made out of his philosophical thoughts on language.
>>7380601
He seems to be saying that there would be no way to move the figures to make them coincide in such a way that the movement thus used would not require an extra dimension.
Meaning : suppose you were to imagine a triangle in 2D "flipping" to coincide with another one, the "flipping" action would "require" the triangle to "use" the third dimension to "go out the page and rotate on an axis".
I use "" because all of this thinking is an analogy and isn't to be taken literally.
>>7380714
What sort of mathematical background is needed for this?
>>7380870 to read the guide to intro to logic books and choose one? Literally nothing, thats the start.
>>7380856
If that is what it means... then Wittgenstein is obviously right.
It's just too hard to think about since there are only 3 dimensions we only know it's true because of induction though.
>>7380870
It's probably good to refresh some concepts from set theory and functions. Not truly deep stuff, introductory books on discrete mathematics should do the trick.
But the guide I posted is very much self-contained. It is truly meant for people who have never had any contact with mathematical logic.
I'm in no position to offer better advice than Smith in this regard, so you should read some of the guide first. Logic is a fascinating discipline, it's truly a joy to study it.
>>7380825
>I'm Viennese. I'll offer a couchsurfing couch to people who want to discuss foundations on any level. Contacts at
axiomsofchoice.org
That's pretty cool. I'm planning on moving to Germany next year, and would probably visit Vienna during my stay.
>and if you see somebody on SE Math proposing some application of paraconsistent logics, it's probably me.
I did an interview of Newton da Costa a couple of months ago, the old guy still has it going.
>>7380770
that is actually very useful and proves that Wiggenstein is correct lol
>>7380989
I don't see how.
>>7381266
Why not?
>>7380561
>You could argue everything that is, is logical,
how does it feel to be nihilistic ?
Is it bad if I have lewd thoughts about Wittgenstein?
>>7380825
abstraction is nice only to enhance communicability, but remains disconnected from the empirical world. the lesser you abstract the more you comprehend the your sensation. do not dwell too much in math.
>>7380448
W. should have meditated
