/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18723095]

What should I read before reading Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to understand it?

[Anonymous No.18723105]

>>18723095
Read Plato, and optionally Kant. It teaches you why Wittgenstein's emphasis on pure logic is flawed to begin with (philosophy is predicated upon non-logical realities and schema which connect this to our method of reasoning).

[Anonymous No.18723173]

>>18723095

for the math stuff, look up the wikipedia article on Truth functiuons, also the notions of Pascal's triangle and how it relates to combinations (4 choose 2 equals six, say), and how a row of the triangle sums to a power of two. Unfortunately Wittgenstein used bad notation for the concepts in the diagrams so they're an objective help until the end (in a sense).

[Anonymous No.18723208]

>>18723095
. and : mean either "and" or another "()"

[Anonymous No.18723562]

>>18723095
The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
Or probably not -- just seemed like a wow-deep-dude kind of pseud thing to say.

[Anonymous No.18723912]

>>18723105
Tell me how I know you're a Math/Logic-let coper. There is no such thing as a non-logical reality and mathematics and logic lend themselves well to Platonism so I don't see how you can name Plato, oh, and Kant? what are you on about?

[Anonymous No.18723952]

>>18723912
>Implying you can prove reality is logical
You literally can't

[Anonymous No.18723958]

>>18723095
Read the wikipedia page about autism and you’re good to go!

[Anonymous No.18723982]

>>18723912
Mathematics is based entirely on geometry, which is non-logical in its origin (in that, it requires spatial intuitions, not "logical intuitions", to have meaning and be made logically classifiable). There isn't a single mathematical proof of arithmetic which doesn't, realistically, depend on the geometric intuition (what Kant calls the spatial transcendental aesthetic).
>mathematics and logic lend themselves well to Platonism
Platonism is the best foundation for mathematics, not the other way around, which is why I recommended him. Wittgenstein's problem seems to be with an analytical foundation of mathematics, which Plato was never stupid enough to even contemplate.

[Anonymous No.18724020]

>>18723912
I suppose I should've clarified, however, that by "non-logical" what I really meant is that the reality underlying mathematics cannot be properly reduced to any logical/analytic expression or dissection. This can only be done for the purpose of language, systemization, and exchange of ideas, but not for knowledge itself, which is independent of its written or verbal symbols. Wittgenstein seems to believe that the fact that language is not sufficient in itself means that
metaphysical knowledge cannot exist. This is only the case if you are a purely verbal thinker with no "third eye", or in other words spatial (and even intellectual) intuition.

[Anonymous No.18724048]

>>18723095
Some Russell's essays and speeches like "On Denoting" and his lecture on logical atomism
Also read Frege's Foundations of Arithmetics and his essays on language and logic like "On Sense and Reference"

[Anonymous No.18724069]

>>18724048
And, of course, try reading a book about propositional logic if you're not familiar with it

[Anonymous No.18724206]

>>18723095
There is this book called "Wittgenstein's Vienna" by Allan Janik which attempts to place the tractatus in the context of.. well.. Wittgenstein's Vienna. He argues that British analytical philosophers have interpreted the tractatus as a logical/mathematical work while Wittgenstein intended it (partly) as an ethical work. When one sees the work in the context of end-of-the-century Vienna, this ethical dimension becomes clear. The book also goes over people like Karl Kraus, Schönberg and Freud, which also makes it an excellent overview of the Vienna circle at that time. On the logical side of things, Frege and Russell basically. Read 'On Denoting' by Russell and 'On Sense and Reference' by Frege. Hope it helps.

[Anonymous No.18724209]

>>18723982
Is number not a separate intuition from space

[Anonymous No.18724212]

>>18724206
Forgot to post this essential reading.

[Anonymous No.18724218]

>>18724048
This recommendation is quite good

[Anonymous No.18724228]

>>18723982
>Mathematics is based entirely on geometry
Maybe in Kant's times, modern math is not

[Anonymous No.18724356]

>>18724206
a million times this. OP, if you follow any advice on this thread, let it be this. "Wittgenstein's Vienna" is the greatest introduction to Wittgenstein one can read.

[Anonymous No.18724422]

>>18723095
It's seriously retarded, all of the secondary literature on it concedes this. Poetry posing as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18725787]

>>18723095
It's not a hard or long book. I wish people already gravitated toward Frege and Russell ahead of ever having sudden impulses to read the funny Austrian language man just because "he seems cool," but since they're pseuds who always go for iceberg tier 1 philosophers, we always have to have these threads, and someone always has to come and remind new people to read Frege and Russell before the Tractatus. That's all, don't worry about much else unless you want to.