Guilty. Was just starting to read the original Tsui no Sora and was blasted by this and Kant, had to search for some videos to explain it in a clear way. Will have to watch this video a couple times, but was a great intro to the topic!
When you understand the evolution of language on an instinctual level, the Tractatus opens like a miracle. It approaches Buddhism in its intense clarity and really brings immanence into philosophy.
OK! Yes truth-tables, although these also come from a number of places (Post, Russell, and maybe Peirce). W also links these to probabilities (around 5.15), and the idea that p and q are (or express) the same proposition when each entails the other - that's an influential view in modal logic & Phil language.
That he was willing to put himself out there despite noting his self-contradiction, instead of waiting forever to be perfect before doing anything infront of the eyes of another. That's quite meaningless by his standards, but very admirable nonetheless and something we could all learn from.
sold wittgenstein very short at the end. he was not some stubborn strident advocate of his first great work the way many are throughout the history of philosophy. rather he exhibited more humility and greater willingness to self critique perhaps more than any other thinker when he totally revised his view and rejected his earlier work.
"This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both. Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of. Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way. This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him. My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha. The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!" Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?" Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer, and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you." Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die." Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman. So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life. Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."
So love the topics, and made this philosophical theory very accessible, but honestly you looking just below the camera and not at it, really throws me off. I know it’s small but I feel that finding a way to look right at the camera will really help bring these videos home and more attention by your audience (IMHO)
The totally of reality is THOUGHT, because without thought we cannot bring our realitys into existence. Now I could go a step further, and say that without the facility of mind then we would not be able to experience this thing we call our realitys. Funny isn't it even that is just a thought.
Thank you for your reply, you pose a very good question. But isn't it your facility of thought that brings your question into your stream of consciousness "reality"?. So in other words it is through your facility of thought that you are creating your reality, in other words the experience of reality "life" is an inside out experience rather than an outside in experience. This is true for all of us, and the wonderful thing about that is, it allows us to claim responsibility for our experience of life. Kind regards Eamonn Leonard.
"Saying vs. showing" is the heart of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, is that correct? Reminds me of the game where you attempt to define a word by using other words, but then those words require definitions, until you run out of words and can only point to the sky and say "blue", or show someone volunteering as "good", or the feeling of laughing as "funny". The meaning still exists - it's not nonsense. However it transcends language.
I actually just finished reading the Tractatus a couple of weeks ago, and I found it far easier to understand than some other works, like Hegel or Satre. Not to say this video is unnecessary, but Wittgenstein is refreshingly clear.
Well not invented until decades after he died, but there is a thread of ideas there, from Wittgenstein’s ‘meaning as use’ to proof theoretic semantics to proofs as types & the Curry-Howard correspondence to functional programming.
This sounds a bit like the way the founder of The Samaritans, Chad Varah, discovered what his organisations purpose was, when a woman visited him again and again, repeating something she was trying to get straight in her head. Every repetition made is clearer in her head what the problem (confusion) was in her head, until eventually she knew exactly what it was she meant at which point she left and never came back. As he said himself about it, he never did or said anything to the woman, just gave her space to clarify what was going through her head
(I think this question/statement could just be rephrasing stuff you’ve already said, but nonetheless I want to ask!) If philosophy produces nonsense, surely the Tractatus can only hope of proving that philosophy is sensical? If it does prove philosophy is sensical we can put the question to rest. If it doesn’t, we can only keep searching to see if we can prove it’s sensical. The Tractatus is excavating a cavern, defining the edges of what language can do, but our excavation can neither strike gold (find philosophy as sensical) or collapse on us (kick the ladder away), unless we believe it has. Doesn’t this mean the Tractatus has a subjective, dare I say it Idealistic quality or flavour?
The TLP isn’t trying to find sense in philosophy, the whole point (in the standard reading) is that philosophy itself is nonsense, but by going through the process, can show us something important.
I have long thought the quote " ... must be silent" is some of the worst Philosophy out there. It is the kind of argument a US Trumputin Republican would say. WHAT is it allegedly that we cannot speak about? WHY can we not speak of it? I think good Philosophy should be able to speak about anything and everything, if only to show how absurdly wrong it is. Wittgenstein comes up short in the Tractatus (yes, I have read it).
According to Wittgenstein, certain topics aren’t meaningful - metaphysics, theology, aesthetics. So we can’t meaningfully say anything in those areas. Nothing to do with Trump (thankfully)! I’m not saying W is right, but it’s bizarre to think it isn’t serious philosophy.
@@AtticPhilosophy it's a serious thought, yes, but itself engages in mystification by sweeping asserting s "don't talk about it" prohibition without talking clearly about why such things "cannot" beyalked about. "BECAUSE THEY ARE NONSENSICAL". but why, WHY arete
@@bassafarside6071 That's basically what the Tractates is about. It's a theory of meaning, a consequence of which is that certain sentences aren't meaningful. Very roughly, meaning arises through correspondence with worldly facts in logical space. They are roughly the empirical facts. Logical truths are the limits of meaning. Beyond that, eg metaphysics, is meaninglessness.
@@AtticPhilosophy I agree with you that that is the thesis. It is also good enough for dealing with the MAGA followers. But the thesis was already advanced by Kant and he attempts to explain when something is a "fact", which certainly is anything but clear. Kant's explantation may very well be inadequate, but he takes up Hume, Berkeley and Locke in his attempt. What is Wittgenstein's? Does it collapse into the British empiricists? As for logic, Kant accepted it as a given but I think it has become clear that logic inheres in the linguistic model and always requires "interpretation" to permit statements about the "world out there" (Gesellschaft, Esther, Ba h and my first year logic Prof in 1980. Finally, do logic and mathematics maje statements about what "is out there" or are they meaningful statements in construction of a tool for modelling? Those are the questions thar are open, I think. Wittgenstein made a contribution no doubt to getting us to the current forefront but his famous final words are just too programmatic and I think can be misused. Thus my reaction.
He was giving a theory of meaning, so not questioning whether *any* sentence is meaningful - but it turns out, on his theory, that many sentences are meaningless. As he says, ethical & theological sentences may have a purpose, but aren’t meaningful.
Really enjoyed the video. But it seems so bizarre to me that Wittgenstein says the Tractatus is meaningless. Does it not build up its own picture? By describing what meaning is, does it not points towards a state of affairs of how the world is?
Not according to Wittgenstein, who (in the Tractatus) thought of meaning and logic as “outside the world”, somehow unsayable and beyond meaningful theorizing.
This is quite brilliant. I read Tractatus years ago and read Graylings analysis of it - this is far better than his book, to say, it shows far more understanding of what Wittgenstein’s intentions were in writing this thesis.
Also, thanks for mentioning Ramsay because if it wasn’t for him, Wittgenstein would have ‘completed philosophy’ and we would never have seen his later work - and, I might be wrong here, but didn’t Ramsay refer to a theory of colour to ‘disprove’ Tractatus?
Is a fact not just a thought, so is there anything that is not thought? and if it were not for my facility of mind would I even be able to make that up? And is that not just another thought.
For Wittgenstein, a fact is an entity in the world, not in the mind. Thoughts correspond to facts in the world, but aren't the same. It's a reasonable view: there would be facts (e.g., that Everest is taller than Snowdon, that 2+2=4, etc) even if there were no people around to have any thoughts.
@@AtticPhilosophy thank you for your reply, I have a question, Is there anything in the world that is not a manifestation of mind? Another question, is it not our minds that allows us to have this experience that we call life "ie our realitys". And having come this far can we explore the possibility that life is an inside out experience rather than an outside in experience. Kind regards Eamonn Leonard.
Another excellent, clear, concise overview of a hugely complex topic. A lot of the saying/showing, meaningful/meaningless dichotomy of the Tractatus depends on the limitations of the picture (I prefer 'model') theory of meaning. If a model cannot describe its own state of representation, and this is what the Tractatus is trying to do, then all we can do is throw away the ladder. But, modal logic adds multiple possible worlds to the mix. So now, a model cannot describe its own state of representation in its own world. But from the perspective of another possible world, we can describe the original state of representation. So it's models all the way down, until we run into an actual state of affairs, somewhere ... possibly.
Thanks! Although this wasn't W's argument, there is a general feeling that a model can't describe too much of its own modelling, else you get paradoxes (like the Liar, if you internalise how the model treats sentences as true or false + use classical logic).
I read (with a guide - I have to say) the Tractatus when I was seventeen and applying to university (and thanks to the Vice-Master of University College, Durham for recommending some key texts) I have read and re-read it multiple times I find it like a highly faceted jewel if you turn it slightly you see another aspect of his thinking. My believe is it is best read as an expanding website where you start with the seven propositions and you navigate around each layer I think of it like a tree diagram. BTW I know Wittgenstein did write things on index cards but the later Investigations does read like a Zettelkasten. One of my ideas in my retirement is to take the Philosophical Investigations and turn it into a full blown electronic Zettelkasten.
He recognized that human language is a hopeless mishmash incapable of being useful to Philosophy. He then tried, unsuccessfully, to construct a useful language as a tool for studying philosophy
