/lit/ - Literature

>>15284963
If you hold the book up the other way it looks like a rabbit

>>15284963
did you read Russell and Frege and learn first order logic?

>>15284971
thats the other one
tractatus deals with reality as logical atomism or something

Kill the dog.

>expecting any philosophy past Aristotle to make any sort of sense

>>15284963
It's about fucking.

>>15284963
Jesus, what's wring with your thumb?

it's literally about nothing. he's literally a pseud and im not even kidding, i looked forward for years to read him now I realize he's useless.

>>15284963
What the fuck is with your thumb

>>15285020
>>15285138
Idk it’s always been like that

>Analytic "philosophy"

>>15285226
I guess it happens. One of my left-hand fingers has way more range of movement than all my other fingers

>>15284963
Looks like a different way of trying to show how composite functions work while adding a little set theory into it. Looks like trash though, honestly, why would you waste your money?

>>15285227
>NO! YOU CAN'T MAKE ARUGMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY! OBFUSCATING GENERALITIES ONLY!!

>>15285268
isn't analytical philosophy suppose to be straight forward without any gibberish?

>>15285280
It's literally numbered and subnumbered

>>15284963
Lmao philcucks struggle with basic set theory, prepositional logic and function composition. Those are the people who make threads saying how all philosophers are high-iq Gods and mathematics is trivial and wrong.

>>15285373
fuck math, fuck science and fuck bugmen

>>15285257
>>15285373
^ Literal retards.

>>15285382
>>15285386
You can't even understand basic highschool and first semester undergrad maths and yet other people are the retards? The jokes write themselves

>>15284971
based

>>15285418
>projecting this much
wew

>>15285469
>Y...you ar-are projecting
Get a grip, brainlet

>>15285479
Reread what you wrote, moron.

>>15284995
Abandon the atomist reading, based on a bad translation, 'states of affairs' is more accurate than 'atomic fact'. I don't know how your translation has it.

>>15285490
Cope literal retard

>>15285353
The first thing people did to the Phenomenology of Spirit was number it, how did that work out?

>>15285373

>>15284963
It's trash, even the guy who wrote it thought it was too. Read the Philosophical Investigations instead.

>>15285418
No, OP is not saying he doesn't understand it, he's saying that actually thinking you can argue philosophy this way is shit for brains pseudo intellectual brainlet shit.
You know, like what you are.

>>15285534
Sounds to me like he can’t understand it. Makes sense because the texts is going lengths to be abstruse at explaining basic fundamentals of logic.

>>15285554
>Sounds to me like he can’t understand it.
sounds to me like you're coping

>>15285074
He was trying to build a way to express philosophy as clearly and exact as math. He he was a genius and you don't eve qualify as a pseud.

>>15285572
What are you going on about? He said he was flabbergasted.

>>15285573
So he actually WAS a shit for brains pseudo intellectual moron lmfao
>>15285578
Yes, flabbergasted and the prospect that an incel autistic pseudo intellectual faggot thought he could reduce philosophy to mathematics lmfao

>>15285506
It's analytic philosophy. Nobody thinks it's complicated. I'm not sure you even need much background information on it but a secondary helps

>>15285584
>reduce philosophy to mathematics
actually he was pretty clear most philosophical statements lie outside of the realm of language and math. you have actually read him, right anon?

>>15285584
Who are you upset at? I was the first one to post that it looked like composite functions and set theory. I would be flabbergasted too if I didn’t already know the math behind it. Take a fucking chill pill, you fag.

>>15285534
>>15285554
>>15285572
>>15285578
OP here,

I genuinely don’t even understand what he’s trying to do. The words completely fail me.

This is the guy that was Trakl’s sugar daddy? Who should I read to come close to getting this?

Also I don’t know any math past algebra

>>15285593
the Tractatus is pretty regularly considered one of the hardest works of philosophy ever written. Everyone was so baffled by it, the philosophical community basically refused to publish his work, and only did so after Russell basically sucked his dick, and wrote a glowing appraisal of the work which demonstrates quite well even he didn't understand it. And Witty said as much too. In fact, Witty is famous for lamenting that the book is terribly hard to read, and that almost nobody who reads it understands it. And I say all this because I took studied the book under a professor who was a Wittgenstein scholar, he did his PhD thesis on the Tractatus and the Investigations.

>>15285636
Fair enough, what is considered hardest about it?

>>15285636
>I took the time and studied

>>15285636
OP here

Great, so in my quest to read all the great works of philosophy, I chose the hardest one out of them all.

>>15285636
So it’s kind of like Newton’s publications? Purposefully too difficult to understand fully

>>15285639
Everyone reduces it to a description of language, and it is, but only insofar as that description allows you to understand prop 7. Prop 7 is literally the key to the entire work. Witty called the Tractatus a ladder, when you get to the top, you can throw the ladder away. The first 6 propositions are literally just a ladder to be discarded once you grasp 7. Read in this way, it actually fits quite nicely with the Investigations too, and the idea of the game theory of language. Make the turn much more understandable.

>>15285636
then what is the point of being a Wittgenstein scholar if nobody understand his work?

>>15285644
You should start with Plato or Descartes. You can start with the Tractatus, you don't need background readings or anything for it, but at the same time if you aren't a 160 iq autist it might not speak to you.
>This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it—or similar thoughts. It is therefore not a text-book. Its object would be attained if there were one person who read it with understanding and to whom it afforded pleasure.

>>15285660
Fair enough, tell me if I've got it right but that when you say a word like 'cat' it is composed of many things that you can't purely use the term 'cat' to understand it. So to say 'a cat has four legs' is almost meaningless because 'cat' is composed of an existential element, a linguistic, perhaps a rational etc.
I understand it generally was an ethical argument but is that on the right track in terms of the ladder?

>>15285676
Are you kidding? You use the status to dab on everyone

>>15284963
Those diagrams will make more sense if you take an intro course in propositional logic, and learn about truth functions ad truth tables. Any introductory textbook will do, and it's easy enough to be self-taught.

Basically, those diagrams map out the way that the truth value of complex sentences is dependent on the truth values of the sentences that make them up, as they're connected together with certain logical operators.

In the top-left image, he's showing the four logical possibilities for the truth values of two propositions, p and q. [1] they are both true, [2] p is true, but q false, [3] they are both false, and [4] p is false, but q true. The picture under that shows how to get the truth value for the conditional "if p then q," which is false (on top) just in case p is true (T) but q is false (F), and true otherwise (the other three cases).

And so on.

>>15285676
My professor used to tell us lots of stories of Wittgenstein's life. Supposedly, he would take a relaxing chair into class, basically like a lawn chair, and kick back and relax. Every once and a while, a student would ask a question, and he would patiently explain why the question, as formulated, is nonsense that cannot be answered. I think he wanted to be that professor, a sort of modern Buddhist sage. When you think about it, his project is a lot like Eastern philosophy, netti netti, the Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao, he loved tying all that stuff into Wittgenstein. He spent his early adult years traveling Asian monasteries studying Buddhism. Those classes were so damn comfy

>>15285717
what is the significance of all this theater?

>>15284963
if you read from beginning to end instead of starting in the middle everything will make sense. Enjoy the ride into a mental cage.

What is so strange to me is that Wittgenstein read Schopenhauer who provided such a clear, precise, straightforward explanation of language.

It's almost as if Wittgenstein didn't read Schopenhauer.

Philosophers should take pride in clarity since their job is to describe the human experience.

>>15285689
Cat refers to a bunch of things, including things like 4 legs, which is connected to 4, ect. But this is only useful insofar as it can describe the cat, so far as the description matches the states of affairs. It makes sense to ask, how many legs does the cat have? it doesn't make sense to say, how many legs does the flower have, because the flower has no legs. BUT. Asking how many legs a flower has isn't nonsense, because you can answer it. A flower has zero legs. Take another statement. The cat weighs 5 pounds. We can ask, how much does the flower weigh? 5 ounces, whatever. So far all of these are within the state of affairs, the logical possibilities of sense. But what about when we ask, how much does love weigh? How much does the square root of a prime number weigh? How much does freedom weigh? These are nonsensical. It doesn't simply work to say, freedom weighs nothing, in the way we said, the flower has no legs. Basically, you have to think in counterpositive ways. here let me draw it out:

things are things are not
(p, sense) (~p, sense)

Things are and are not things are not and are not not
(p ^ ~p, nonsense) (~(p v ~p) the mystical)

>>15285810
okay that didn't work, check out this picture

>>15285810
Makes sense but it's not simply a measure of saying something can't be weighed to not talk about it. What does he use particularly to deny these things?

>>15285864
Read prop 7 again, he never denies anything:
>Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Somehow, people read this and think he means:
>Whereof one cannot speak, that shit doesn't exist

>>15285942
Deny these things can be talked about* I mean. How does he justify freedom is something you can't talk about?

>>15284963
If you're the Anon from the other thread, I told you so, anyone that says they understand him without prerequisite reading is a larping brainlet and you still listened to them and got memed. Philosophy isn't fucking basic shit for kiddies

>>15285950
There is a logical form which must be followed, to ask a question like, how much does freedom weigh? you step outside of logical form into nonsense. All the things which can be said which make sense must fall into the logical form.

>>15285991
Sure but at that point prop logic was already well set by Frege, Russell and you could say in Russell's form that 'there exists a thing which is freedom and that thing can be measured'. So even by Russell he was allowed to speak of abstract or even nonsense things, right? What particularly was the break between witt's logic and Russell's?

>>15286112
Russell and the Vienna circle were doing their best to turn him into a logical positivist, but it didn't work. I wouldn't see Witty as a rejection of Frege, it is closer to an exploration of what logical actually means. He isn't simply telling you the rules, he is demonstrating the limits of expression through the expression of the rules (which themselves are not a state of affairs). He was a logician, but the Tractatus is more or less a work of epistemology, and even, dare I say it, naked metaphysics.

>>15286194
>logical actually means
logical form actually means

>>15286194
Bravo I see. Still his metaphysics had a mechanism in it for exploring things that were sensical but was there a mechanism to decide sense from nonsense or was it literally what could be sensed?

>>15286194
Also if I could go further, why couldn't you speak of things like freedom? Or what was the mechanism that made it unspeakable, like what traits did unspeakableness have/gives?

>>15286211
It changed from his early years to his late. He talked about picture theory in his early work, which sounds a lot like correlationism, but by his late work he was promoting the game theory of language, where the symbol itself doesn't correspond, but rather sense emerges through a practical game like application in language. Early Witty was about making the word refer to the state of affairs of cats in the world like a picture refers to a real object, Late Witty was about reference coming about through a common understanding of rules, contexts, ect. A good example of the game theory of language is sign language gorillas (doesn't matter if it's bullshit or whatever, it's a useful example). Supposedly, Koko didn't have a word for "ring". So, when she wanted to talk about a ring, she signed the words "finger bracelet". Ultimately, ring and finger bracelet both complete the job in describing the referent object, it isn't about an accurate picture so much as it is a functional exchange in the game of communication

>>15286272
>making the word refer to the state of affairs of cats
making the word cat refer to the state of affairs of cats
sorry I've been smoking too much weed I can't type

>>15286272
I get it so literally something to sense through picture theory. By this you can't sense math then, right? Was math mystified for him as well. I know he was an ardent teacher of it so how does the mechanism apply to it or what kind of math ontologizes did he accept for it?

>>15286272
>doesn't matter if it's bullshit
That's a good example tho cheers

>>15284963
In order to understand Wittgenstein's Tractatus you have to read Suba Hibi first

>>15286290
Math is a description of logical form, it isn't itself a state of affairs. He was all about functional logic. It makes sense to say, twice 2 makes 4, or 4 is the square root of 16, it is nonsense to say, twice 2 makes blue, or 4 is the square root of Texas. You can say things about 2, but you can't attach predicates to it in the same way you can states of affairs. I'm, running up to my limit here though, I don't know enough about the philosophy of math to get into the nitty gritty on this point.

There is a rhinoceros under the table.

Everytime I see people shit talking wittgenstein it never seems to have anything to with philosophy and everything to do with not being good at discrete maths
>>15286305
unironically a good baby's first wittgenstein introduction.

>>15286337
I get it, then love as a non state of affair was fine then? Say an undefined ontology of it was okay it was just the subjective or relative to the ontological form that we couldn't speak of?

>>15284963

Those diagrams are an incredibly bad visual representation of truth tables.

>>15286381
I mean, my take my differ from Witty's here. I think he would say you can't say anything about love, that you must be silent. I don't know if I buy that. Also, Witty might have been too autistic to understand the nuances of metaphor, the way for instance Kant did

>>15285644

It really isn't that hard, OP, but you should know some basic logic and a bit of math before trying it. You can also safely ignore this anon, >>15285636, professors play up their own research area and Wittgenstein was himself wrong in his dismissal of Russell's interpretation of the work.

>>15286403
Wittgenstein is moreso saying if you can't say anything objective about a thing, it's better to not talk about it as though it is objective -- objective meaning empirical, by his wording, iirc.

>>15286395
He discusses standard truth tables earlier on

>>15286419
No, he literally says you must be silent. Being silent means not saying anything about a thing.

>>15286430
Shut the fuck up.

>>15285644
Wittgenstein is pretty out there, as far as philosophy of language goes. If you're just starting with this field, you really should get to know the other guys first: Frege, Kripke, Ayer, Quine, Austin, that sort of stuff. I've always found Wittgenstein to be weirdly removed from the analytic canon, he kind of lives in his own world. And for your own sanity, avoid anyone with a french sounding name.

>>15286403
Okay well last big question, what traits did he assign nonsensable things? Like they were transcendent?

>>15286445
And if they were transcendent why did he stop at nonsensical things instead of everything?

>>15286445
You can't assign traits to them (he would say attach predicates rather than assign traits). You literally can't say anything about them that isn't nonsense. He isn't saying they don't exist, but that the category of existence doesn't apply to them in the same way the category of weight doesn't apply. It isn't that they don't exist, or that they weigh nothing, they literally lie outside of the logical form where existence and weight make sense

>>15286463
Isn't that transcendental or how could I understand it besides it being real but just nonsense because he doesn't deny it's real like you said so I assume there's something to be said about them?

>>15285717
Sounds like a LARPing faggot

>>15286422

Yes, and he is effectively doing the same thing in that passage albeit with a retarded "swoopy brace" set of figures when he ought to have just presented it as a simple table and then related his Xi-thing to it. It is a completely stupid and unnecessary visual which adds no value to the treatise. Once you actually read the passage with a little understanding, you immediately realize "oh, he should have just used truth tables instead".

In fairness, this is slightly ahistorical. Wittgenstein (among earlier thinkers who had done much the same things) was in the process of figuring out truth tables themselves and graphical representations for them. He dun goofed with the brace-things, hard. And no, he isn't describing anything substantively different than "a truth table" so don't anyone bother trying to go down that road.

>>15286497
I mean idealist

>>15285573
The Virgin wittgenstein vs the Chad Jung basically.

>>15286497
You are looking for an answer, but Wittgenstein is saying that's not possible. He isn't giving you an answer, he is showing you why the question you are asking doesn't make sense
>is love transcendent
is love purple? what shape is love?

>>15286654
Yadda yadda speaking a bunch of nonsense

>>15286654
Sure I get that he's saying it doesn't apply because it's unspeakable so what would the implication be that he didn't note? Surely saying it is real but unspeakable assumes an ontology, what would that be?

>>15286681
No one said it was real, saying it is real would be saying something where we must be silent. Like I get if this isn't satisfactory to you, but he is literally saying you can't even ask if love is real or not

>>15286751
Fair enough I was wondering what metawitt would think or how to metawittgenstein

>>15286770
It's a very unusual take on philosophy and there's a reason he has haters. He is about epoche, a suspension of judgement, of passing over problems rather than getting stuck in the infinite muck of trying to answer the nonsensical