/lit/ - Literature

>>8787106
Get the commentaries by cora diamond, Roger white, and anscombe. You could also just google "tractatus syllabus" and see what they recommend

>>8787106
>layman's terms

get out. NOW.

>>8787106
>is unreadable on it's own.

Maybe for plebs

>>8787122
can you recommend any individual works from those three authors?

>>8787106
The real question is: why reading it? Or: who (what kind of person) should read it? Is it worth what?

>>8787163
That's a dumb question. The quest for knowledge is a reward in itself, humans have a drive to understand the unknown.

>>8787171
Oh, then you read every single book that comes under your sight

fucking retard

It's really fucking easy, retard!

I have written up a complete guide to understanding all of Wittgenstein's work but seeing as you have made this thread instead of fucking Googling or asking a specific question the Tractatus then you won't get it!

Fuck you!

>>8787106
you need to read it like this:
first 1.0 then 2.0 then 3.0 etc
then 1.1, 2.1 , 3.1 etc
and continue like that. If you read it in linearly its kinda a mess. Try a few pages like this and youll see it makes a world of difference.

>>8787218
Was it intended to be read linearly?

>>8787926
No, Wittgenstein is kind of on a different level than regular people and presumed people would recognize this

Read PI and On Certainty first, using the commentaries of people like Cora Diamond and Hacker and Baker

Then go back to Tractatus with full knowledge of the controversies surrounding it even within this revisionist school of Wittgenstein interpretation, and you'll realise it's kinda boring no matter who is right about it and PI is better in every way regardless, because it's either just a proto-PI or it's a lame thing abrogated by PI anyway

>>8787931
Wrong, Wittgenstein did this purposely not only because it was the correct thing to do but also to be obscure and admired by others.


He literally stood up after the PHD examination by Russell and Moore and patted them both on the back and said "Don't worry, I know you both won't get it" I am paraphrasing but that is what I remember.

Wittgenstein was indeed a genius but there is no doubt he purposely obscured things.

OP, I am this guy >>8787198


Seeing as I feel bad, the book you should read with this is Anthony Kenny's 'Wittgenstein'.

>>8787106
My Witty prof at Harvard recommended the Mounce Introduction

>>8787106
Would you say it's.... intractable?

>>8788922
CARLOSSS

>>8787177
Youre one dumb faggot, faggot