4 ms·

IMHO, that this work is so highly regarded says more about the sad state of modern philosophy than it does about Wittgenstein. The Tractatus is linguistically

by lisper 3y ago

IMHO, that this work is so highly regarded says more about the sad state of modern philosophy than it does about Wittgenstein. The Tractatus is linguistically and logically incoherent. For example: 1.1 The world is the totality of facts... 1.11 The world is determined by the facts... So which is it? Is the world identical with "the totality of facts" or is the world something separate from the facts whose nature is "determined by the facts"? It can't be both. To say nothing of the fact (!) that Wittgenstein never defines what he means by "fact". The standard Phil101 definition is that "a fact is that which is the case" but Wittgenstein writes: 1 The world is everything that is the case. So he uses the word "world" to mean what is usually denoted by "fact". So either facts are something other than "everything that is the case" or 1.1 is vacuous. And that's just the first three lines!

Gormisdomai 3y ago
In this critique have you considered that a way that that X can be logically determined by Y is by X just being Y.
- lisper 3y ago
  Sure, but that's a vacuous observation. X being determined by Y is only useful when X and Y are somehow distinct. Simply having two different labels for the same object is not very interesting.
  - Gormisdomai 3y ago
    I would suggest that if one label is singular (the world) and the other is plural (the totality of facts) and you explain how the latter combine to form the former then the observation should be especially informative. In general pointing out that two labels point to the same object can be very informative and this is relevant for the context in which Wittgenstein was writing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege%27s_puzzles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege%27s_puzzles
    - lisper 3y ago
      Perhaps, but why do you think that's relevant? Both of the references in this case are plural.
Takennickname 3y ago
1.1 The world is all the facts added together. 1.11 The world moves forward, by facts being unveiled. (Here, he sort of gives world and facts a better definition by involving time). The world is everything that is the case = fact + point in time = case If you have a more detailed response than a quote of the first two sentences of one of the most complicated philosophical works of all time (and arguably what put an end to analytical philosophy and a start to computer science), then it would be a nice chat, but by God man do better than copying and pasting 3 lines and saying "Wow this is dumb"
- lisper 3y ago
  If I were to write a detailed critique of the Tractatus it would be orders of magnitude longer than the Tractatus. But when critiquing a work that is utter nonsense from beginning to end it suffices to show that the foundations are nonsense because garbage-in-garbage-out. If someone starts out by proclaiming that one is equal to two, you don't have to dig into the details of their argument to say confidently that it has no merit. > what put an end to analytical philosophy and a start to computer science That is also nonsense. First, Wittgenstein did not "put an end to analytical philosophy": "Analytic philosophy is a branch and tradition of philosophy using analysis, popular in the Western world and particularly the Anglosphere, which began around the turn of the 20th century in the contemporary era in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Scandinavia, and CONTINUES TODAY [emphasis added]." [1] And second, Wittgenstein did not start computer science. That credit goes to Alan Turing -- or maybe Goedel or Babbage or Jacquard or Boole or Frege or the unknown inventor of the abacus. But certainly not Wittgenstein. I'm sorry, but this emperor is naked. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
  - Takennickname 3y ago
    Sounds like you don't know Alan Turing was Wittgenstein's student for a number of years. Cool. Feel free to remain an imbecile.
    - 3y ago
adammarples 3y ago
Isn't an important part of the tractatus pointing out that people get tripped up by "is" having different meanings? I can't remember, it's been a long time.
- lisper 3y ago
  Maybe, I don't know. I haven't read the whole thing. Like I said, to me it is self-evident incoherent nonsense from the get-go, so it doesn't seem worth spending a lot of time on it. But I will point out that Bill Clinton is infamous for having made the same observation in a rather different context, so it's hard for me to imagine how this could be considered a deep insight.
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    Clinton briefly studied PPE at Oxford, but quickly dropped the Philosophy and the Economics, keeping only the Politics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Oxford https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Oxford
verisimi 3y ago
Great analysis.

by lisper 3y ago

Gormisdomai 3y ago

In this critique have you considered that a way that that X can be logically determined by Y is by X just being Y.

lisper 3y ago
Sure, but that's a vacuous observation. X being determined by Y is only useful when X and Y are somehow distinct. Simply having two different labels for the same object is not very interesting.
- Gormisdomai 3y ago
  I would suggest that if one label is singular (the world) and the other is plural (the totality of facts) and you explain how the latter combine to form the former then the observation should be especially informative. In general pointing out that two labels point to the same object can be very informative and this is relevant for the context in which Wittgenstein was writing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege%27s_puzzles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frege%27s_puzzles
  - lisper 3y ago
    Perhaps, but why do you think that's relevant? Both of the references in this case are plural.

Takennickname 3y ago

1.1 The world is all the facts added together. 1.11 The world moves forward, by facts being unveiled. (Here, he sort of gives world and facts a better definition by involving time). The world is everything that is the case = fact + point in time = case If you have a more detailed response than a quote of the first two sentences of one of the most complicated philosophical works of all time (and arguably what put an end to analytical philosophy and a start to computer science), then it would be a nice chat, but by God man do better than copying and pasting 3 lines and saying "Wow this is dumb"

lisper 3y ago
If I were to write a detailed critique of the Tractatus it would be orders of magnitude longer than the Tractatus. But when critiquing a work that is utter nonsense from beginning to end it suffices to show that the foundations are nonsense because garbage-in-garbage-out. If someone starts out by proclaiming that one is equal to two, you don't have to dig into the details of their argument to say confidently that it has no merit. > what put an end to analytical philosophy and a start to computer science That is also nonsense. First, Wittgenstein did not "put an end to analytical philosophy": "Analytic philosophy is a branch and tradition of philosophy using analysis, popular in the Western world and particularly the Anglosphere, which began around the turn of the 20th century in the contemporary era in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Scandinavia, and CONTINUES TODAY [emphasis added]." [1] And second, Wittgenstein did not start computer science. That credit goes to Alan Turing -- or maybe Goedel or Babbage or Jacquard or Boole or Frege or the unknown inventor of the abacus. But certainly not Wittgenstein. I'm sorry, but this emperor is naked. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
- Takennickname 3y ago
  Sounds like you don't know Alan Turing was Wittgenstein's student for a number of years. Cool. Feel free to remain an imbecile.
  - 3y ago

adammarples 3y ago

Isn't an important part of the tractatus pointing out that people get tripped up by "is" having different meanings? I can't remember, it's been a long time.

lisper 3y ago
Maybe, I don't know. I haven't read the whole thing. Like I said, to me it is self-evident incoherent nonsense from the get-go, so it doesn't seem worth spending a lot of time on it. But I will point out that Bill Clinton is infamous for having made the same observation in a rather different context, so it's hard for me to imagine how this could be considered a deep insight.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  Clinton briefly studied PPE at Oxford, but quickly dropped the Philosophy and the Economics, keeping only the Politics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Oxford https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Oxford

verisimi 3y ago

Great analysis.