This has to be one of the most beautiful philosophical texts I’ve read.

Despite all its flaws, I have huge respect for what Wittgenstein tried to do with his Tractatus.

His work was a bold attempt to grapple with the fundamental nature of language, thought, and reality.

Wittgenstein was not afraid to question the status quo and explore new ideas.

He did not give a fuck about what others might think or say.

He was focused on his own pursuit of truth and understanding.

His ideas have had a profound impact on philosophy and continue to be studied and debated today.

Although his writing can be difficult to understand at times, the effort is well worth it.

The Tractatus is a masterpiece that challenges us to think deeply about the world around us and our place in it.

It is a work that will continue to inspire generations of philosophers and thinkers for years to come.

**Kant and Wittgenstein**

Wittgenstein's research, like many theories of philosophers after Kant, is in a way related to Kant's epistemology. Kant, by defining the boundaries of human knowledge, showed that many things fundamentally lack the ability to be grasped by the human cognitive apparatus. As a result, they will always remain on the other side of those boundaries and in the realm of the incomprehensible. Wittgenstein, following this tradition, by closely examining the human cognitive apparatus, that is, logic, tried to determine its structure and define its boundaries more precisely. For this purpose, he started from the external aspect of logic, that is, "language", and analyzed it.

**The Picture Theory of Meaning**

The basis of Wittgenstein's work in the Tractatus is the analysis of the structure of language and showing the correspondence of each level of the structure of language with a level of the structure of the world. First, he deals with the analysis of the logical structure of the world and says that the world has three levels. The first level: The world is composed of objects. Objects are the simplest states of affairs around us, although this simplicity may be relative to a certain extent. For example, a table may be considered a simple object from one point of view, and from another point of view, it is composed of four legs and a top. The second level: Objects combine with each other and can take on different combinations. For example, "table" can be combined with "coffee" or with "white". Both of these combinations are possible. We call the possible combinations of objects with each other "possible states of affairs". The third level: One of the different combinations actually exists. For example, "table" is actually either "coffee-colored" or "white" in the end. In fact, only one of the possible combinations exists. We call the combination that is finally realized in reality "actual affairs" or "reality". This is the structure of the world. Wittgenstein then deals with the analysis of the logical structure of language and shows that language also has three levels, like the world. The first level: "Names", which refer to "objects". But what is reference? Reference is an artificial and conventional relationship between a name and the object corresponding to it. There is no relationship between the word "t-a-b-l-e" and the actual table. Rather, it is we who have decided by convention to apply the word "t-a-b-l-e" to the actual table. The relationship between names and objects is like this. The second level: "Propositions" "picture" the "possible states of affairs". But what is a picture? A picture is a real relationship between a proposition and the state of affairs corresponding to it. In such a way that there is a relationship between names (which form a proposition by their combination), which is similar to the relationship between objects (which form a possible state of affairs by their combination). In contrast to "reference", where we said that a name and an object have no relationship with each other and the relationship is entirely conventional, in "picturing", a proposition has a real relationship with a possible state of affairs and these two are actually similar to each other. The relationship between a proposition and a possible state of affairs is like this. The third level: We said that the possible state of affairs that is actually realized is called "reality". Now if a proposition (which is a picture of a possible state of affairs) is in accordance with reality, it is "true", and if it is not in accordance with reality, it is "false". For example, in reality, the table is white. We have two propositions: A: The table is coffee-colored. (A possible state of the table) B: The table is white. (Another possible state of the table) Of these two possible states of the table, the table actually has only one state: white. The proposition that is in accordance with this state is true and the one that is not in accordance is false.

The Tractatus is truly a mesmerizing pile of poo.

I dedicated an entire semester to attempting to understand whatever it was that Wittgenstein seemingly stumbled upon.

However, it turns out that this is nothing more than an engineer penning bad poetry. Crap. Absolute crap.

"Whereof that which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence." What on earth is this? It's a coward's way out. Translation: "I can't roll with the big dogs so I'm going to take my ball and go home."

If you have an inclination to read some philosophy, it would be far better to approach Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, or even Schopenhauer or Nietzsche for that matter.

This Tractatus is most definitely NOT philosophy. It fails to offer the depth, rigor, and profound insights that one expects from true philosophical works.

It is a disappointment that浪费了我宝贵的时间和精力.

One should look elsewhere for a genuine philosophical exploration and enlightenment.

Wittgenstein was deathly afraid of uttering nonsense;

whereas I, clearly, am not—how else could I stomach writing so many book reviews?

This book, the Tractatus, is a work of high art—beautiful, austere, and sweeping. Wittgenstein is self-consciously attempting to speak the unspeakable—in his opinion, at least—which is why the language is so succinct and severe. He has no use for literary niceties, flowing prose, or extended exposition. One gets the feeling that, for Wittgenstein, writing philosophy is repugnant, akin to unclogging a toilet, something he would like to get over with as soon as possible.

Come to think of it, the toilet metaphor is especially apt. Wittgenstein honestly thinks that the whole of Western philosophy has been literally nonsense, and wishes to free the pipes of thought from all the years of accumulated filth. And the coup de grâce is that, after condemning the philosophical tradition, he condemns his own work. The Tractatus is almost meant to be like a purgative—you swallow it just to spit everything back up.

Wittgenstein has fully mastered the precept that the more time one spends arguing a point, the less likely that point seems. His conclusions are so sweeping, his sentences so forceful, that one is tempted to unthinkingly agree with him. Nevertheless, after some consideration, I doubt that many people accept his conclusions. I don’t. In fact, Wittgenstein’s aforementioned fear of saying something nonsensical may be have limited him. It’s almost as if he had a superstitious fear of transgressing the bounds of sense—a superstition all the more perplexing because he places its object outside the realm of thought.

But, like most good books of philosophy, the Tractatus is rewarding to read even if one doesn't accept its conclusions. So, read it, I say! Spend time on every sentence, and savor every word, and maybe Wittgenstein will unclog the toilet of your mind. Maybe you'll find new ways of thinking and seeing the world, even if you ultimately reject his ideas. After all, that's what great philosophy does—it challenges us and makes us think more deeply about the things that matter.

Let's just say I read it.

Although I skipped a significant portion of it, especially the part about logic which constitutes more than half of the text, the remainder was an interesting read.

I could understand very little, yet the notes provided by the Romanian translator, a professor of philosophy, were extremely helpful.

However, even his preface failed to assist me in obtaining a better visualization of the logical content.

I simply don't get it, particularly because I consider these notions a complete waste of time.

It seems like a form of mental masturbation to occupy one's time.

There is likely a very profound meaning to this work that eludes me.

I won't spend another minute on it as I don't find it useful for me at present.

Sentences that are logical sentences, not real ones. Space that is logical space. I mean, I can barely understand the concept of space, and he presents the idea of logical space to me?

The guy was nevertheless a very interesting person. I particularly like that he worked as a gardener's helper at a monastery, a school teacher, and in the patient transport business in the hospital.

And beside all that, he comes up with stuff that I can barely make sense of. Hail to that. And chapeau.

Hail also to the small format book I found at an antiquariat in Bucharest. It is such a sweet book.

What the book also has are some of the perfect philosophical slogans you will ever read.

And the beat went on.

It seems as if the rhythm never ceases, continuously flowing and evolving.

Yet goes on, as if there is an unwavering determination to keep moving forward.

And gwent on, perhaps with a sense of mystery and intrigue.

The various links provided, such as the ones to SoundCloud, Bandcamp, and the Archive.org, offer different musical interpretations and experiences related to the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

These musical works seem to explore the themes and ideas presented in the philosophical text in unique and creative ways.

Whether it's the continuous beat or the sense of progression, the music associated with the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus invites listeners to engage with the text on a different level.

It allows for a new perspective and a deeper understanding of the philosophical concepts through the medium of sound.

So, let the music play on and continue to inspire new interpretations and discussions.

Wittgenstein's fundamental assumption is that language and the world are completely opposite. He bases his entire philosophical system on language and the logic of language. I think there is no empirical evidence to support the basic teachings of the Tractatus, but surely some of Wittgenstein's inferences are in conflict with scientific issues. The more I study the Tractatus, the more convinced I am that the philosophical system must be based on the achievements of science, and no part of science should be sacrificed for excessive emphasis on other topics, whether it is logic or psychology and so on. Despite all my differences in opinion, studying the book and the concepts and thoughts in Wittgenstein's mind was very enjoyable. Soroush Dabagh's explanation was also very helpful in presenting Wittgenstein's thoughts in their entirety and the connection between the different parts of the Tractatus.

It is important to note that Wittgenstein's work has had a profound impact on the development of philosophy. His ideas about language and logic have challenged traditional philosophical views and opened up new areas of research. However, his work is also controversial, and different scholars have different interpretations and evaluations of it.

In conclusion, although I have some reservations about Wittgenstein's Tractatus, I still think it is a very important philosophical work that is worth studying and reflecting on. By studying Wittgenstein's work, we can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of language, logic, and philosophy, and also启发 our own thinking and research.

"Ge moet zwijgen" is a Dutch phrase that means "You must be silent." Silence can be a powerful tool in many situations. It allows us to listen more carefully, understand others better, and avoid unnecessary conflicts.

When we are silent, we give ourselves the opportunity to reflect on our thoughts and feelings. We can also use silence to show respect for others or to create a sense of mystery.

In some cultures, silence is highly valued and considered a sign of wisdom and maturity. For example, in Japanese culture, the concept of "mokusatsu" means to respond to a situation with silence or non-action.

However, silence can also have negative connotations. It can be seen as a sign of冷漠 or unresponsiveness. In some cases, remaining silent can even be harmful, such as when we witness injustice or when we need to speak up for ourselves or others.

Therefore, it is important to use silence wisely and appropriately. We should know when to be silent and when to speak up, depending on the situation and our goals. By doing so, we can communicate more effectively and build stronger relationships with those around us.

Probablemente haya entendido un 5%... siendo generoso XD

I think that maybe I have understood only about 5%, and that's being quite generous. XD

It seems that now it's time to read some other book where the relevant content is explained more clearly or perhaps ask ChatGPT for clarification.

There could be various reasons for my limited understanding. Maybe the concepts in the current text are too complex or the writing style is not very accessible to me.

By exploring other resources or seeking help from different sources like ChatGPT, I hope to gain a better understanding and fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

This way, I can continue to expand my understanding and make more progress in my learning journey.

What can I say about Tractatus that hasn't been said a million times before?

Crystalline... gnomic... dense... wrong. Well, I don't disagree with any of that, but it would be nice to have an image.

I ask my subconscious if it can come up with anything, and while I'm in the shower it shows me the sequence from Terry Gilliam's 1988 movie The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, where John Neville and Eric Idle build a hot air balloon made entirely from women's lingerie.

I am about to smack my subconscious upside the head for its appalling presumption, but suddenly I see that it could have a point. Hm, yes, you are first struck by the amazing chutzpah of the idea, and then you are convinced that it can't possibly fly, but somehow it does. It's obviously crazy, but also quite unforgettable.

And they use it to escape from an apparently life-threatening predicament which, it turns out, was only ever in their imagination.

OK, subconscious, now I see what you mean. But don't push your luck too far!

Maybe the Tractatus is like that hot air balloon. It has an audacious quality that makes you initially question its viability. Yet, like the balloon that defies expectations and takes flight, the Tractatus manages to have an impact and leave a lasting impression. It may seem crazy in its density and complexity, but it also offers a unique perspective that can't be easily forgotten.

Just as the characters in the movie use the balloon to escape a self-created困境, perhaps the Tractatus provides a way for us to break free from our own intellectual limitations and explore new ideas.

So, while I may not be able to add anything truly new to the countless discussions about the Tractatus, this image from my subconscious has given me a fresh way of thinking about it.

First, there are some really excellent reviews of this book right on this very site. You should definitely go and read them.

For my part, the statements in this book can be divided into three distinct categories.

The first category consists of what I would call "OK, so what" statements. These are rather banal sentences that seem to lack any real depth or insight.

The second category is the "wait what why?" category. These are huge conclusions that seem to come out of nowhere, without much in the way of a clear logical progression.

The third category is the rest, which presents a captivating logical construct that really makes you think.

Now, for the first and second categories, the problem might mostly lie with me. Maybe I should have read up on the Russell/Frege mathematical logic that the author keeps referencing, because after a while, the notations start to lose their meaning for me.

"Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries" - this is a very laudable goal. However, I found myself feeling a bit dumb for not seeing the clarity in something like "There is no possible way of making an inference from the existence of one situation to the existence of another, entirely different situation". I thought the use of "entirely" here was a bit problematic, and I wasn't entirely convinced by the conclusion. This would definitely fall under the second category.

Still, whether you agree with the stuff in the book or not, it's really cool to stop and think about it. It makes you question your own assumptions and look at things from a different perspective.

We are unable to think in an illogical manner. This is because the language, numbers, or pictures that we utilize as thought processes involve positioning objects within logical relations. For language, it is grammar; for numbers, it is maths; and for pictures, it is physical laws.

Currently, all that is unknown is considered false, and all that is unknowable is currently unthinkable.

As a corollary, all possible ideas can be classified as either true or false. For example, the statement "Sky is blue" is True, while the statement "Sky is green" is False. However, the statement "Sky dog brains" is nonsensical, illogical, and not applicable.

Don't be intimidated by the maths. It merely "redescribes" the words.

Detailed video summary
Abridged Summary
We cannot think illogically, because the language, numbers or pictures we use as thought involve placing objects within logical relations (grammar, maths or physical laws, respectively).

All that is unknown is currently regarded as false, all that is unknowable is currently unthinkable.
----------
Extras:
As a corollary, all possible ideas are true or false:
Sky is blue — True
Sky is green — False
Sky dog brains — Nonsensical; illogical; n/a

Don't let the maths scare you, it only 'redescribes' the words.