/lit/ - Literature

>>6485287
He proved himself wrong with the Philosophical Investigations.

I've not read it but i disagree with him

>>6485287
>Wittgenstein's Tractatus solved philosophy.


Yeah, no. Regardless of the fact that he himself admitted he fucked up the first time, Philosophy has hardly made any progress answering anything.

>ITT: We try to prove it wrong.

>>6485292
No, he stopped taking the solution to heart and aproached other problems.

>>6485300
Read it you lazy bum, it's less than 200 pages.

>>6485321
Philosophy can't answer anything because the question of philosophy can't meaningfully be asked.

>>6485389
questions*

PI already solved the Tractatus. Get with the program OP.

>>6485397
Literally who?
Also,
>solved Tractatus
u wot m8?

>the limits of my language mean the limits of my world

Wittgenstein was pretty based. It's I shame I wasn't around in his time. Would've really loved to discuss logic with him. And indulge in the gay sex.

>>6485287
you cant prove tractacus wrong, just criticize its narrow scope and ignorance of history of philosophy

>>6485605
Could you elaborate on "narrow scope?" And also explain why the history of philosophy is important when philosophical questions and answers cannot be stated with meaning?

>>6485287
"Just as the only necessity that exists is logical necessity," Wittgenstein says in proposition 6.375, "so too the only impossibility that exists is logical impossibility." In the following proposition, 6.3751, he goes on to say: 'For example, the simultaneous presence of two colours at the same place in the visual field is impossible, in fact logically impossible, since it is ruled out by the logical structure of colour." He also says a little later in the same proposition: "It is clear that the logical product of two atomic propositions can neither be a tautology nor a contradiction. The statement that a point in the visual field has two different colours at the same time is a contradiction." It follows that a proposition ascribing a certain colour to a point in the visual field ("This is red", "This is blue", etc.) cannot be an atomic proposition, i.e., such a proposition must be capable of further analysis. In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein appeals, rather unconvincingly, to a physical analysis of colour in terms of the velocities of particles (one must assume that he did not know, at this point, the theory, now universally accepted, that light always has the same velocity and that different colours are to be analysed in terms of wave-frequencies rather than particle velocities). The impossibility of something's being both red and blue at the same time thus appears as the statement that a particle cannot have two velocities at the same time. However, this purported physical analysis - even if it had any scientific basis (which it does not) - does not get rid of the problem. Even supposing that the physicist thus provides an analysis of what we mean by "red", Wittgenstein is only reducing the difficulty to that of the necessary properties of space, time and matter or the ether. He explicitly makes it depend upon the impossibility of a particle being in two places at the same time. It is hard to see how this impossibility can be a matter of logic rather than physics, which it would have to be if Wittgenstein is to hold on to his view that the only necessity is logical necessity. It Wittgenstein is not to give up this claim, he has to show how the properties of space, time and matter can appear as logical necessities.

#rekt

>>6485772
You can mathematically prove that a point within a grid can not hold two differing positions at the same time. And you can do this without taking examples from physics. It's a fairly simple logic conclusion to make. Problem solved.

Time and matter, however, are not a problem. And claiming them to be a problem is utter non-sense.

>>6485287
He's just the nominalist's kant

and he was super gay and autistic

>>6485597
>living with Witty in some hut deep in the mountains of Norway, with his sisters trying to "better" you at all times, because you'll never be good enough for their precious Ludwig
Man, it would be awesome.

>>6485819
This doesn't prove Tractatus wrong, though. Witty managed to solve philosophy despite being a gay autist. Which is quite a lot more than any of the gay autists of this board has ever done.

>>6485832
>tfw no witty bf to hold me and whisper non-sense in to my ear at night
It's surprising I haven't offed myself yet.

>>6485850
Except he admitted himself he was wrong.

Also nobody, not even Wittgenstein knows what an object is in his philosophy. His notes also disprove them being places in time in space or things such as a specific color, defeating any possible notions of monads.

>>6485879
I wonder if Witty actually did have sex with Pinsent or Skinner.
In "Tagebücher 1930-32" he mentions having masturbated at night and feeling vaguely guilty about it, but "like he might try again tomorrow".
He was a fascinating, albeit odd man for sure.

>>6485891
so autistic

>>6485647
Begging the Question.

>>6485881
Wittgenstein saying the Tractatus was wrong doesn't make it wrong. I'd personally go as far as to say that the biggest mistake in Tractatus was making the point so inaccessible. But considering the point couldn't be talked about at a meaningful level it is understandable that he wrote it as he did.

Also, it's impossible to meaningfully say what an object is as objects are simple. I could possibly say that "objects are," but that's tautological so there's really no point in mentioning it.

>>6485912
So beautifully autistic.

>>6485815
No, that's literally the argument that made him change his mind.

>>6485959
wat

>>6485402
I'm not the guy, but by PI he means Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, and by 'solved' he probably means 'offered an extremely strong critique and an alternative view of language'.

>>6485389
>Read it you lazy bum, it's less than 200 pages.
Reading the tractus is not as simple as just 'reading' it

>>6486139
Well, you can always 'read' it once, and then if you feel like it you can actually read it. I'd say that even just 'reading' it is worth it.

>>6485978
Read Frank Ramsey's review and "Some Remarks on Logical Form" by Witty.

>>6485891
Wittgenstein was sexually intimate with Francis.

I know that. I read it today.

>>6485287
Didn't know how Wittgenstein looked like.

He appears like a likeable person, not very intimidating.

>>6486322
You should talk to some of his students

>>6486312
Where did you read it, if I may be so curious?

>>6485287
>prove it
>wrong
>solved philosophy

>>6486367
it's sarcastic you retard

>>6486346
It's in Ray Monks biography.

Hands down the best book I've ever read.
It's shaken me.

It's sublime

>>6485934
retard deetected

>>6486367
It's like that 4chan guy who hacked the internet

>>6487932
Oh really? I've had that lying around for the longest time, looks like I should finally read it.

Who's really trying to answer questions in philosophy though? Your understand still develops through the process of ruling out meaningless possibilities. I don't know why anything exists, but I am less wrong than most on the issue.

>>6488144
Witty writes in the introduction to the TLP that philosophy is more about scratching an itch than providing a cure.

Every philosopher claims to have ended philosophy but they've all been wrong. Wittgenstein at least realized his mistake later in life.

Honestly, the linguistic turn has been the worst thing ever to happen to the humanities.

>>6488227
But the point of TLP is that there's really nothing to solve, no? Or rather that no meaningful solution can be made, and as such the questions can't be meaningfully asked.

>>6488231
>solve
Philosophy isn't even necessarily about solving things, or asking & answering questions. Wittgenstein's outburst at Popper indicates that his philosophy isn't adequate for actual social situations where ethical issues arise.

as somebody else said, the logical atomism in tlp was completely discounted with pi.

>>6488308
That outburst was autism more than anything else, imo. I honestly find the ethics of Tractatus to be really interesting and, while maybe not something to live by, it certainly gives a lot of food for thought.

>>6488323
How so?

>>6488329
because logical atomism only holds under the very restricted (and unrealistic) conditions that words are nouns/adjectives only, that these words only have a single referent (as opposed to a plurality which is the case) and that the referent can be reduced to some logical set of properties which can validate any propositions (but these properties are impossible)

>>6488329
I find his ethics interesting, but I find your dismissal of one of Wittgenstein 's concrete displays of what his ethics actually involves slightly more interesting. Whether or not it was autism (all philosophy is autistic to one or more degrees so this point is a non sequitur anyway), he was taking a legitimately Wittgensteinian position: there's no ethical problem here because there aren't any ethical problems at all.

>>6488329
>How so?
The post earlier anon made about colour is an argument against atomism. Witty's atomism can't explain colour. This was Frank Ramsey's critique of the book that made Witty try to repair the theory, his "transitional phase", and while working through that phase he discovered the importance of ordinary language.

>>6488343
I thought the pluralism of words could be explained that a single word can depict several different atomic facts. But that's impossible? And could you further explain on the referentiality.

>>6488413
Couldn't colour be explained as a relation between an object and my perception?

>>6488422
>object
What the hell are objects? What the hell is a 'relation?'

>>6488423
What are you even trying to ask? The words on my screen appear to me as nothing but non-sense.

>>6488422
>I thought the pluralism of words could be explained that a single word can depict several different atomic facts
No because the referent of the word is already implied in the sign and if they are separated to allow for multiple referents then the atomism between word and object simultaneously collapses. How the object is becoming the referent is precisely the problem, and the only way to annex the word to the referent is by using the word within a language game which lead witty to pi.

>But that's impossible? And could you further explain on the referentiality.
>>because logical atomism only holds under the very restricted (and unrealistic) conditions that words are nouns/adjectives only,
by this i am referring to the capability of validating propositions (as true or false) under logical atomism as only possible if the referent are nouns or adjectives of nouns. for other words such as "this" "that" "there", etc, they only acquire their meaning through their use (or function in the sentence or behaviour game) and not by referring to any objects.

>>and that the referent can be reduced to some logical set of properties which can validate any propositions (but these properties are impossible)
suppose that the word is 'apple'. the logical atomist says the sentence "this is an apple" (holding an apple in the hand, disregarding the previous statement about 'this'" is true if what is in the hand is indeed an apple. yes, tautological. so what is an apple? an apple is something green and circular with a stem at the top? but not every apple is green, not every apple is circular, and not every apple has a stem at the top. what about drawings of apples, are they to be regarded as "real apples"? if not what diffrentiates them from real apples? how do you diffrentiate the truth of 'apple' existing in the hand from the use of the word apple in the rhetorical-question "how do you like them apples?" suppose we assumed apples to be an object for the sake of simplicity and took what is commonsensically a group of apples sold at a supermarket. there is no "atomism" that is mutual between these objects, even literally speaking on the level of 'physical atoms' they are completely different. spatially. temporally. their properties. there is absolutely nothing that grounds them. this also applies to every other object. this doesnt mean the word apple doesnt have meaning. what we mean by meaning is for it to function in a discourse. for it to make 'sense' - meaning evoking a behavioural or linguistic reply.


note: this ofcourse all presupposes apples dont have dna, which they do and so it becomes a simpler case (although not infallible because dna breaks down at reduction also). but even taxonomy is roughcut. and not everything has dna.

>>6488432
The point has already been made ITT that the concept of an object in the TPP was impossible to make sense of. I was just reminding you of something that happened earlier in this discussion, albeit flippantly.

>>6488444
Thanks for clearing things up. Cheers, m8.

>>6485772
>For example, the simultaneous presence of two colours at the same place in the visual field is impossible, in fact logically impossible, since it is ruled out by the logical structure of colour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color