wide gun stein

[Anonymous No.9151372]

>the world is the totality of facts, not of things.
what did he mean by this?
more specifically, why is the world not made up of things? in what way is it's representation as the set of facts more accurate?
What should i read to understand the t.t. better? presumably Russell or G.E. Moore, but what work specifically has helped you understand it?
pls don't answer if you're going to talk out of your ass

[Anonymous No.9151413]

>what did he mean by this?

Synopsis of his whole work.

[Anonymous No.9151451]

>>9151413
>Synopsis of his whole work.
i figured only tt (1-2) would be about that particular phrase, i really doubt the entire word is about explaining the first sentence, and i don't think you thinks so either.

>1 The world is everything that is the case.∗
>1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
>1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the
facts.
>1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and
also all that is not the case.
>1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
>1.2 The world divides into facts.
>1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything
else remain the same.

These don't seem to be the explanation of an idea to a layman, I would think he's expanding on logical positivism. Do i really need to understand all of the work on positivism preceding this work to understand a single sentence?

[Anonymous No.9151452]

>>9151451
>lines of non-greentext

fucking book is published online with random indentations i couldn't see in the comment window

[Anonymous No.9151464]

Witty was an idiot, t b h.

Hegel was a lot closer to the truth.

[Anonymous No.9151497]

>>9151451
>I would think he's expanding on logical positivism.
He is.

Facts, that compose the world, is what we can talk about, they make our propositions true or false.

If we interpret "things" in 1.1, as Kant's noumena, they are something that we cannot talk about, which gets us to Proposition 7:
>"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

>Do i really need to understand all of the work on positivism preceding this work to understand a single sentence?
My suggestion would be to keep reading. In a conversation, the American would typically ask: "Can you elaborate with that?", which is something that Wittgenstein does, with Proposition 2 onwards.

I would think 2.0121 could help.

[Anonymous No.9151502]

>>9151372
>what did he mean by this?
he's literally just saying you can't know nuffin'

oh wow the world is subjective and subjectivity is part of the world in turn? so deep, so Witty

[Anonymous No.9151511]

>>9151497
>the American would typically ask

Hey, we watched the same Derrida video!

[Anonymous No.9151579]

Maarten Maartensz comments on proposition 2:

Every (meaningful) statement represents a (possible) fact, and
every (possible) fact is a class of (possible) state of affairs, and
every (possible) state of affairs is a relation between or a combination of things.
https://maartens.home.xs4all.nl/philosophy/wittgenstein/Notes/T2.html

For Wittgenstein, facts > things.

>>9151511
I could relate with that, because IME non-Americans make more frequently an effort to interpret things, as opposed to pester people with (usually non-specific) requests for clarification.

They'd rather ask: "Did you mean X?", where X is a tentative interpretation, rather than: "Elaborate."

[Anonymous No.9151795]

>>9151579
that was a helpful link, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.9151809]

>>9151372
the world and language have a common logical structure
terms can only be understood in the context of propositions
analogously, objects can only be understood in the context of facts
if meaningful language is the totality of propositions, not isolated terms then the world is the totality of facts, not isolated things

[Anonymous No.9151893]

>>9151809
This makes an awful lot of sense to me, but i don't want to misrepresent Wittgenstein in accordance with his agreement to my own opinions