In the Preface, Grayling presents a significant challenge. He argues that it is simply impossible to condense any of Wittgenstein's works into a concise, single-volume summary. This was something that the earlier version of Ludwig was capable of doing, but not anymore (at least not during his lifetime). Wittgenstein's philosophy is far more than a one-time success. It is like a rich and diverse musical composition, belting out beautiful ballads about the reality of language and thought. It also engages in intense rap-battles with the more familiar cogito-ergo-sum champions by skillfully gaming the entire system.

Wittgenstein's ideas are complex and multi-faceted, and any attempt to simplify them into a single volume would inevitably lose much of their depth and nuance. His work has had a profound impact on philosophy and continues to be studied and debated by scholars around the world.

Grayling's challenge serves as a reminder of the importance of engaging with Wittgenstein's original texts and grappling with the full complexity of his ideas. Only by doing so can we truly appreciate the significance of his contributions to philosophy.

"کھودا‌پھاڑ‌نکلا‌چوھا" can be translated as "Digging and a rat came out." This simple phrase seems to describe a situation where someone was engaged in digging and unexpectedly, a rat emerged.

Perhaps the person was digging in a garden, looking for something specific, or maybe just doing some general excavation work. The appearance of the rat could have been a surprise and might have caused a bit of a commotion.

It could also be used as a metaphorical expression, suggesting that when we dig deep or search thoroughly, we might uncover something unexpected or unwanted.

In conclusion, "کھودا‌پھاڑ‌نکلا‌چوھا" is a short and interesting phrase that can have both a literal and a metaphorical meaning, depending on the context in which it is used.

It is truly quite fascinating. I have been rather interested in Wittgenstein for quite some time. However, I haven't actually read anything by him. I think I have been daunted by his style and also haven't quite found the time.

Grayling, on the other hand, manages to make me feel like maybe I shouldn't really bother to read him. This should, I think, be one of those "A Very Short (and Critical)" type of introductions. In Grayling's view, Wittgenstein was not one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, neither in terms of influence nor in terms of insightful ideas. He was, however, very good at creating disciples.

That being said, I think one reason for Grayling's conclusion is that his purpose is to place Wittgenstein within the analytic tradition, which Wittgenstein himself saw himself as belonging to (I think). But perhaps Wittgenstein's influence has been more outside of that tradition and, in a way, outside of philosophy overall. For example, in theology, Wittgenstein's idea about language influenced the postliberal school immensely.

If, as I think I will, I come to read Wittgenstein, I think I will limit myself to "On Certainty" and probably his "Philosophical Investigations". Grayling was very critical of Wittgenstein's lack of connection between language and reality (if I remember correctly). Yet, hasn't that idea had a great influence in the continental school? Even if it probably doesn't derive exclusively from Wittgenstein? Also, I would like to understand how Wittgenstein thought about rules, following rules, public language, and about meaning in connection with truth as well. All these are areas which I think Grayling does a good job in introducing and explaining, yet I don't think I managed to follow exactly what Wittgenstein might have meant.