/lit/ - Literature

>>17405359
Go at it with secondary sources. "Wittgenstein's Vienna" will show you aspects of the book that anglos ignored and that made up an important part of his work.

Just read it. You won't understand it all. Hell, some people still quarrel over his mystic points.

>>17405359

Here, this helps a bit.

>>17405359
read 50 books of wittengstenian theory before you read it.
if you don't agree with something after you read it you didn't read enought theory.
partecipate to struggle sessions.

>>17405359
>>17405412
Just use this instead: http://tractatus.lib.uiowa.edu/map/
And, don't be a dumbass like >>17405422, there's pertinent information that can guide you.

>>17405412
thank you anon it looks helpful

>>17405436
>>17405412
what is the point of these? they don't help actually understand the work at all.

>>17405390
Indeed he explicitly states you won't understand the work unless you've had the same thoughts as him.

>>17405536
They're a map, so one doesn't lose the thread of ideas Wittgenstein is expressing. A book like >>17405369 would be helpful, or Anscombe's work on Wittgenstein (if you want the anglo perspective that ignores his ethics)

>>17405359

Why do people approach philosophy like it's supposed to be a fixed, formidable intellectual effort which can't be failed? Just read it and think about what you just read, and don't fret if you don't think you got all of it, wtf. It's not even Aquinas or Frege, I assure you Wittgenstein's style is far closer to other schizos in here than many other works you could be scared of. You should be concerned with better understanding and preparation for understanding AFTER your first attempt to compare other sources to your own thoughts, how will you compare said sources against each other and against your own understanding if not like this?

>>17405582
of course you are right, but i've heard several times it's a difficult book.
sometimes explaining a certain metaphor or symbolic before the first read might be helpful. sometimes a particular passage is worth skipping through in order to focus on another one but you're probably right I should first read it as is

Don't worry about skipping parts that don't make sense. There will definitely be some. The thing is he writes in this aphoristic style that doesn't flow together. Each numbered section is like a self-contained thought or observation, although occasionally they reference each other. You can read it more or less out of order which is neat and unusual

>>17405390
Explain this. Many people say he was a very mystical thinker, others say he was completely anti-religious.

>>17405568
yes, but he numbers his bullet points in a way that shows you the thread so I really don't see what the point of that 'map' is. it's just basically colour coding a table of contents. it doesn't explicate or synthesize any of the content, which is the difficult part: the meaning of his terse words. not the structure, which is logical and easy to follow.