/lit/ - Literature

>>22675076
>early Tractatus period
>Determinism: if you know the angle and speed at which a rock will be thrown, you can know where it lands.
>Wittgenstein thought that language worked this way as well
>Anything that couldn't be described empirically was "meaningless", because its referent could not be properly communicated.
>essential problem of humanity as one of "misunderstanding", which is necessarily one of "poor communication"

Yeah I dont know much about the stuff he wrote later but these ideas just dont sit well with me personally.
I wont bother with it.

>>21775717
nta, but the early parts of the TLP lay down a "logical ontology", then develops it, showing that all logical principles reduces themselves to tautologies, then in the later parts falls into asinine drivel that somehow is what everyone got hooked on (the "of what we cannot speak we must say silent" shit.
>>21775781
Because he gives them a framework from which to "intelligently" say that any other philosophical argument is invalid, and they don't even have to learn the specificity of this framework either, because its only purpose is to show that you shouldn't talk about it.

>>20851525
Yes. Didn't go very well.
I also remember he sent letters to apologize to a student lover of his for his abusive behavior, I think the student essentially told him to fuck off too, but I might be misremembering shit, my univ course on him goes back over a decade, and he really isn't someone I want to invest time in studying (beyond some interesting parts of the Tractatus)

>>20185399
Help me understand this.

>>19727911

>>17405359

Here, this helps a bit.

>>17393044
>>A philosophical view known as ‘mysterianism’ holds that even though there is nothing supernatural about how consciousness arises from neural activity, the human brain is simply not equipped to understand it. The reason we find the mind–brain problem so baffling, the argument goes, is that humans did not evolve sufficient cognitive abilities to solve it, just as armadillos did not evolve the ability to understand arithmetic.

There is no 'riddle'. If a question can be asked an answer can be found.

>>17352630
Never went much further than the Tractatus, which creates an "logical ontology" which defines the limits of meaning.

>"Only maths can be true so all words bad?"
No, propositions are meaningful if well constructed and used as "images of reality".

>>17108624

How?
I mean, it's a good book, I've written at least half a dozen essays about various parts of it, but I fail how it could change your life in any meaningful way... ?

>>17069870

Nope, it is entirely self contained.
In fact you'll probably avoid the dumber positions on it by not exposing yourself too much to it's litterature.

>>17011366

Ludwig beyong the Tractatus was wrong about nearly everything tho.
And no, you probably don't understand the Tractatus either.

>>16930234

Begin with the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, if it is too hard, quit.

>>15962017
Metaphysics and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>9999531

A major point of the text is that its very structure invites it to be read in multiple ways. The material is first-of-all organized in terms of the various sub-comments on the primary bits, and exhausting the sub-comments on that bit before being done with it and moving to the next. The numbers, I believe, as presented, strictly increase as real numbers.

Simply reading the book in its original order could be construed as a "vertical" reading, while a later reading focusing on a different organizational scheme might instead be construed as a "horizontal" scheme, or senses along these lines.