Wittgenstein's life is the subject of a great biography that offers many insights. However, the only criticism I have is the author's reluctance to explore his philosophy more deeply. Given that it is a biography, perhaps this isn't entirely unexpected. But when one considers that the book was almost 500 pages long, it's hard not to feel a little disappointed. After all, Wittgenstein was a truly incredible thinker of the 20th century, and his philosophy had a profound impact on many fields. Despite this criticism, the biography was still a great read. It provided detailed information about Wittgenstein's life, including his relationships, his work, and his personal struggles. It also gave a sense of the historical and cultural context in which he lived. Overall, it was a valuable contribution to the literature on Wittgenstein.

I have an unwavering love for this book. It has such a captivating charm that I managed to devour the entire lengthy narrative within just about 10 days.

The story it weaves is truly fascinating, pulling me in from the very first page and holding my attention firmly until the very end.

With each turn of the page, I was immersed in a world filled with unique characters, thrilling adventures, and unexpected plot twists.

It was as if I was a part of the story, experiencing all the emotions and challenges along with the characters.

This book has left a lasting impression on me, and I will surely recommend it to anyone who loves a good read.

I can't wait to explore more works by the same author and see what other wonderful stories they have in store for us.

Overall, it was an unforgettable reading experience that I will cherish for a long time.

According to the text, many points in the "Notes on Logic" remain largely the same. Philosophy is descriptive and does not provide a picture of reality. It cannot verify or refute scientific inquiries. It consists of logic and metaphysics, with logic as its foundation. Epistemology and psychology are branches of philosophy. Trusting grammar is the first condition of doing philosophy.

Wittgenstein thought that Schopenhauerian solipsism and Fregean realism merged in the same perspective. He also considered that "fact" and "case" might not be the same. Wittgenstein's symbolic language can be understood through certain statements. He took Sraffa's criticisms very seriously and thought that Ramsey's objections only led to the growth of crooked branches while Sraffa's cut off the dead branches.

The author believes that "Philosophical Remarks" is the most Kantian book written by Wittgenstein. Russell wrote in a letter to Moore that Wittgenstein used the words "space" and "grammar" in a related way, and that colors and sounds are given a priori in the Kantian sense and that grammar mistakes are a result of the confusion of these spaces. In a letter, Wittgenstein wrote that he kissed Marguerite for a long time.

The author unfortunately starts by introducing Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems with "Every formal system...". Wittgenstein said that we can never reach elementary propositions through our investigations and that we reach the limits of language that prevent us from asking more questions. There are many expressions in the "Tractatus" that he no longer agrees with. It is interesting to make an analogy to family resemblance from Goethe's "The Metamorphosis of Plants". Meta-theory is meaningless as we cannot explain a game by creating another game.

Wittgenstein rejected the methods of Hume and Descartes but thought Kant's critical method was correct. He leaned towards Hegel between the methods of Descartes and Hegel. According to Wittgenstein, the sentence "Different colors cannot be in the same place in a visual field at the same time" has the same grammar mistake as "Three man was working". The correct sentence should be "It does not have sense to say...". In his lectures, Wittgenstein used Hardy's "Pure Mathematics" as an example of the philosophical fog surrounding mathematics. He also said "I was a communist at heart".

Wittgenstein often quoted the following passage from Hertz's "Principles of Mechanics": "When these distressing contradictions have been removed, the question as to the nature of force will not have been answered; but our minds, no longer vexed, will cease to ask illegitimate questions." In response to a statement like "No one can drive us out of this paradise that Cantor has created", Wittgenstein said "I can say that no one has ever thought of driving anyone out of this paradise... I will do something quite different: I will try to show you that it is not a paradise at all, so that you will leave it of your own accord."

The unchangeability of mathematics is based not on the knowledge of certain mathematical truths but on the grammar of mathematical propositions. Therefore, someone who denies 2+2=4 does not know the meaning of the terms. What Wittgenstein challenged was not the impossibility of a third state but the law of contradiction. For example, if a man says "I am lying", we can think about the truth of this proposition in an endless way, but what is the problem here? In their discussions, Turing said that someone could make a wrong multiplication using Frege's symbolism that contains a contradiction, and if a bridge is built with this calculation, the calculations will not hold. Wittgenstein said that the paradoxical operation simply done is not what we call a multiplication operation, and at a certain point, we can choose one of the two. What he meant was that the contradiction would not lead a person astray because it would not go anywhere and no one would make a wrong calculation with a contradiction. According to Wittgenstein, proof in mathematics is more like a series of pictures. For example, we can consider the fact that when we look at a picture from one side, it looks like
000
000
and from another side, it looks like
00
00
00
as a proof that multiplication is commutative. Therefore, the works presented as the foundations of mathematics consist only of a different picture and technique. The role of seeing the connections is great.

Wittgenstein said "I cannot understand the Fourth Gospel. When I read that long speech, it seems to me that someone is speaking differently from what is said in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)." He also ridiculed Russell's analogy: "If I wanted to eat an apple and someone hit me in the stomach and made me lose my appetite, then in fact what I wanted was this blow."

Finally, there are two links provided: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Myste... and https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Detective....

Thank you to Paul Auster for the recommendation via "The Brooklyn Follies."

This book offers a charming and laid-back look into the often opaque (for us ordinary people) work of Wittgenstein's philosophy. It manages to present this complex subject matter in a way that is accessible and engaging.

However, what truly makes this book stand out is its detailed and captivating narrative of Wittgenstein's life and times. We get to learn about the events and circumstances that shaped his thoughts and influenced his work.

Both the exploration of his philosophy and the account of his life are quite fascinating, making this book a must-read for anyone interested in either Wittgenstein or philosophy in general. It provides a unique and valuable perspective that is sure to leave a lasting impression.

Overall, it is a wonderful book that combines intellectual rigor with an engaging storytelling style, making it a pleasure to read from start to finish.

I read this several months ago and it was truly a source of great enjoyment.

There were numerous mic-drop moments throughout, especially his crossover with Alan Turing. It provided me with a fascinating window into the mind and life of someone with a philosophical inclination, much like myself but taken to an extreme.

Moreover, it made me better appreciate the wisdom of my Dad. He has always gently nudged me away from single-minded philosophical output and towards building stronger relationships with others. Interestingly, he probably has never even heard of Wittgenstein.

After reading this, I came to the realization that I too would not wish such a life upon anyone. However, as is the case with all things, it's difficult to label even a tragic life as a waste. This is because we can still read about it and learn from it.

Not to mention, in most of the instances where he passionately railed (perhaps a bit overly neurotically) against other ideas, I could intellectually understand his perspective. In other words, he had valid points in many of the philosophical arguments.

Overall, this reading experience was both enlightening and thought-provoking.

Wittgenstein is a complex figure.

He is often described as arrogant and obnoxious, yet at the same time, he seems insecure and needy.

The author of this piece seems to tiptoe around his homosexuality, which leaves the only important relationships in his life largely unexplored.

Despite these shortcomings, the article does manage to touch on the core of Wittgenstein's thoughts - the distinction between showing and saying.

This is no easy feat, as it is difficult to write about the inexpressible.

As Wittgenstein himself said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Overall, while the article may not be a comprehensive or in-depth exploration of Wittgenstein's life and work, it does provide a starting point for those interested in delving deeper into his ideas.

It is a reminder that even the most brilliant minds are complex and multifaceted, and that understanding them requires more than just a surface-level analysis.

Perhaps with further study, we can gain a better understanding of Wittgenstein and the profound impact his work has had on philosophy and beyond.

**From the Mathematical and The Mystical to The Psychological**

We are introduced to Wittgenstein, who evolves from his interest in the foundations of logic and mathematics to explore the essence of the world. He connects the mystical to the logical, with the idea of unutterable truth being central. Ethical and aesthetic truths are inexpressible, and Wittgenstein's attempt to express the inexpressible blurs the line into mysticism, as Russell put it.

But there's more to Wittgenstein. He intuitively grasps the ontological incompleteness of reality, which is not about knowledge but the nature of reality itself. This incompleteness leads him to reject attempts at rationalist explanations in ethics and morality, and to see that the real problem in mathematics is our need to resolve contradictions rather than the contradictions themselves.
Wittgenstein's experience in WWI transforms him. He challenges the limits of language as he did the limits of life in the war. He rejects the instrumentalism of logic and seeks a new way of thinking, one that is more spiritual and mystical. His attitude becomes one of innocence and wonder as he tries to understand the world and his place in it, but this understanding remains unutterable.
Wittgenstein's ideas about mathematics also change. He now sees mathematical propositions as essentially grammatical, and understanding mathematics as a process of understanding words and language. He scorns Russell's formal logic and emphasizes aspect-seeing as a way to knowledge.
Finally, Wittgenstein shifts from the philosophy of mathematics to the philosophy of psychology. He questions the questions asked by others and moves from the known to the unknown to the unknowable. His later work focuses on the fluid relationship between grammar, mathematics, and psychology, and he emphasizes the importance of custom and practice in determining our concepts.
In dealing with Skepticism, Wittgenstein shows that it can be nonsensical. Certain propositions belong to a certain frame of reference, and if we doubt these, the whole framework of doubt and answer collapses. His work thus offers a way out of the fly-bottle of Skepticism.

Wittgenstein's journey from the mathematical and the mystical to the psychological is a complex and profound one, and his ideas continue to influence philosophy today.

As introspective and bookish as one might anticipate a philosopher as mind-boggling as Wittgenstein to be, his actual daily life is rather fascinating. Two anecdotes that spring to mind immediately are as follows:

1. After serving in World War I, during which he was determined to fight on the front lines, Wittgenstein, who was by inheritance one of the wealthiest men in Austria at that time, gave away all of his money to become a country school teacher, believing that he could not live authentically otherwise.

2. When explaining his meticulous designs for his sister's house, which included the size and shape of every door knob and window down to the tiniest millimeter, Wittgenstein reduced one of the house-builders to tears due to his unyielding exactitude.

Both of these anecdotes exemplify character qualities that cannot help but make a life captivating: a passion for ideals that is both admirable and profoundly alienating. Ray Monk presents the narrative well, making, for example, the publication history of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus" a page-turning drama (at least for this reader). While having knowledge of Wittgenstein's life and times in general does serve to contextualize his ideas, I was somewhat disappointed overall in Monk's explication of his writings. Monk's treatment of the philosophy at times seemed fragmented and inconsistent: he would explain simple points at length, but gloss over more abstruse ideas as if they were self-evident. However, his discussions of Wittgenstein's reading early on in the book were very enlightening, and I will say that the book as a whole succeeds in humanizing and making more accessible this philosopher's exacting and enigmatic texts.

Highly recommend this bio of a truly bizarre man. Amidst his numerous idiosyncrasies, he remained unwavering in his singular pursuit of uncovering the errors in our language usage to achieve a clearer perception of reality. I'm still grappling with trying to fully understand his work, though. Here are some aspects about him:

He was born into extreme wealth in Vienna, yet aside from a few early advantages in life, he never truly capitalized on it. He declined all inheritances and instead chose to work as a school teacher and held many other jobs.

He was also vehemently anti-academic. He firmly believed that the best way to "do" philosophy was to amass a broader range of experiences in life and engage in simple jobs that didn't demand an inflated sense of self-worth or ego, while maintaining a keen interest in self-understanding.

Despite this, he recognized the significance of having a good sense of cultural aesthetics. He appeared to be quite objective in his views on classical music, literature, and art, which he felt everyone should cultivate.

Later in his life, at Cambridge, he would deliberately refrain from preparing lecture notes. Instead, he preferred to work through complex philosophical problems with the class, often pausing for long silences to simply think. He would occasionally exclaim, "damn this is difficult!" or something similar. He developed a devout following of students who constantly wondered where his thoughts were leading. He also had many critics, such as Alan Turing and Bertrand Russell.

The highest values he sought in others were a childlike curiosity and sensitivity, free from intellectual posturing, and simple cleverness.

He proved that one doesn't necessarily have to read the previous body of literature in a field of thought (as he didn't) to transform it (as he did).

Awesome. Awesome. **Stands and claps.**

I said he was mad & he said God preserve him from sanity.

Thus wrote B. Russell about young Wittgenstein in a letter to a friend. He added, in parenthesis ‘(God certainly will)’. Spoken as a true atheist.

Is this a good biography? I wish I had reliable criteria. Does it help me understand the man in his life and historical context? To some extent yes. We see a raving lunatic who thinks the world of himself when he doesn't disrespect himself or talks about suicide.

We do see him getting caught up in the whirlwinds of history. World War 1 costs him his English friendships for many years. It kicks him into other worlds, before he comes back to Cambridge 15 years later.

Monk handles the man’s sexuality well. He neither denies, nor ignores it, nor does he give too much emphasis to his homosexuality.

The oddest aspect of this crazy life is this: the man lived in self-chosen poverty, despite being born into one of the richest families of Europe.

I love this quote from one of his sisters: I would rather have a happy person for a brother than an unhappy saint.

Does the book help me understand the man’s work? Actually, what work did he do, apart from writing some funny aphorisms and some splendid platitudes? Is that ‘philosophy’? And didn't he keep changing his mind anyway?

I guess the book failed to convince me.

Most of the breakthroughs in logic, that the book tells us about, look oddly like platitudes. I seem to agree on that with LW himself, who is quoted thus: ‘What we find out in philosophy is trivial; it does not teach us new facts, only science does that.’

Why did some people at some time consider LW a great genius and the greatest philosopher of his time?

Does anybody know around here?

Anyway, Monk does not really try to show us why LW was so great. He merely said it, and not even forcefully as his own opinion.

On the language side: Monk seems to have translated many bits and pieces from German to English himself, not always convincingly. One example: ‘wie traurig’ can simply be given as ‘how sad’. No need for ‘what unhappiness’. Another: ‘ein lieber Brief’ is not really a ‘lovely letter’. Generally, the book is sloppily edited in the use of German words.

I also wonder why the author ignores the apparent contradictions between LW being ‘Austrian’ or ‘German’. Monk calls him Austrian, and when Wittgenstein, during WW1, says that he is entirely German, wouldn't that have required an explanation, or some comments?

I am not in a forgiving mood about Monk’s error in calling German classical writer Johan Peter Hebel ‘Swiss’. No, that will not do.

An Extraordinarily Brilliant Biography of a Somewhat Overrated Poser

This is truly a great book about a subject who, in the end, may not be all that great. I have read it several times with great detail. It provides an in-depth account of the life and thought of the twentieth century's most overrated philosopher.

It offers an extremely good introduction to Wittgenstein's philosophy (or anti-philosophy), showing the 'logical' progression from the Tractatus to his later works. There is also a deep study of his life, thoughts, and motivations. He was undoubtedly a tortured, troubled, and confused individual. But then again, aren't we all?

I won't justify here why I think he was ultimately stupid and dishonest, except to say that like Popper, I would have felt like hitting him (of course, I never would have - violence is unacceptable). His views on the foundations of mathematics, for example, were infantile. According to him, Gödel's results were trivial and irrelevant, and it's not at all clear that he even understood them. This is the point of view of an arrogant poser who doesn't know the difference between sh** and clay.

On a personal level, imagine a Cambridge professor who tells all of his impressionable students that the academic life is not real or genuine and that they should drop out and find something meaningful. How many of them took him seriously and did so? But for a long time, he didn't do it himself. He didn't need to; he could generate his own oxygen. It's all bullsh**. Hypocritical and harmful.

His accounts of language use in later works do have some value. It's all a lot more sophisticated than was generally thought. Researchers into AI, automated language processing, and machine learning may find useful and interesting ideas. And yet, how deeply Wittgenstein would have detested such an application.

For him, it was all part of his lifelong moralistic anti-philosophical crusade, which for a few decades was fashionably at the top of the pops but has since then dwindled. Mercifully for us all.

Certainly, this is one of the best biographies I've ever had the pleasure of reading. I admit that I haven't delved into as many biographies as I would like, but the proportion of biographies among the books I've read is quite significant. On the other hand, perhaps I have a bit of a bias in favor of this genre. Nevertheless, I can be certain that, as the New York Times so aptly put it, this is a 'first-rate' biography.

I didn't pick up this book with the intention of studying the philosophy, which I'm not entirely sure I would understand at this point anyway. Instead, I wanted to gain a better understanding of the man himself. For what it's worth, I do have a general idea of Early Wittgenstein's ideas, but my knowledge of his later works is somewhat hazy. Wittgenstein is one of the few philosophers whose philosophy, or rather his work in philosophy, seems to be unrepresentative of the man himself. It may even be contradictory. This, however, really aligns with the last statement of the TLP, 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent', and his generally dismissive attitude towards philosophy.

The man himself was half mathematician and half mystic, which is one of the rarer (and perhaps my favorite) archetypes. Therefore, my favorite parts of the book were when he was grappling with spiritual issues - during World War I, his difficulties after the war as a teacher, and his struggles in the environment of Cambridge, among others. I can empathize with the impact that Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche had on his thoughts in general. Granted, since his philosophy wasn't concerned with such matters (he preferred to leave them unsaid), you wouldn't notice it by reading his main works - as you would if you were reading, say, Nietzsche.

Definitely give this book a read. It's approximately 700 pages long, and I breezed through the first 500 or so. Later on, it became a bit of a struggle, but I persevered and got through it.