Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

• I’m interested in reading this document, so I’d like to decipher it properly when I feel like it (blu3mo).

• That aside, I want to grasp the overview now because I’m highly motivated.

• Finally, it’s here (tkgshn)(tkgshn)(tkgshn)(tkgshn)(tkgshn).

• Deciphering Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘Philosophical Investigations’ | Philosophy Guides

  • The author seems reliable.

  • This insight recalls the traditional metaphysical critique in Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. In fact, this book dramatically reshaped the structure of philosophy. After Wittgenstein, examining language from a philosophical or logical perspective became a major theme in philosophy.

  • If you’re interested, I strongly encourage you to challenge yourself. Of course, it’s important to read it with a flat mindset, without the preconception that “It’s difficult, so there must be some truth hidden in it.”

    • Important (blu3mo)(blu3mo)

• Correspondence between language and the world

  • I want to consider how language corresponds to the world.

  • The world is not a collection of “things,” but a collection of “facts.”

    • Are statements like “There is a cat,” “There is a dog,” “The cat is running” considered facts?
      • Are these states of affairs?

  • Facts consist of established “states of affairs.”

    • What does “established” mean?

    • Depending on the establishment of states of affairs, facts are determined.

  • Here, Wittgenstein is not discussing the basis for the object being the smallest unit or for states of affairs being independent of each other. That is merely a requirement that “must be so.”

    • It’s more like another way of viewing/thinking (blu3mo).

• Value and meaning exist outside the world.

• The meaning of the world must exist outside the world. Within the world, everything simply exists and happens as it is. Within the world, no value exists.

• Therefore, no proposition of ethics can exist.

  • Yeah, that’s true (blu3mo)(blu3mo).
    • I Don’t Understand the Basis of Ethics
      • The “basis” mentioned here is about how ethics can be derived from facts.
      • Wittgenstein says it cannot be derived.
    • Ethics
      • I wonder what Wittgenstein thinks about this (blu3mo).
        • Since “morality/norm/ethics” itself does not exist, it’s natural to say that “absolute morality/norm/ethics” does not exist (blu3mo).
          • Regarding existence ≒ facts themselves, he takes a relative (always true) perspective.
          • But in the first place, “morality/norm/ethics” is not included in the set (=world) of {existence ≒ facts}.
      • Was there a definition of “existence” mentioned (blu3mo)?
  • The distinction between norms and facts, the idea of separating norms and existence
    • I wonder if this is derived from Wittgenstein.

• It might be recommended to watch Rochefoucauld’s explanatory video before reading, as it gives a rough understanding of the context, allowing for a more detailed analysis (rickshinmi).

  • I was curious, so I’ll check it out (blu3mo)(blu3mo).

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxDT1_7BJ50

  • It’s amazing that everything can be expressed just with not(a,b) (blu3mo)(blu3mo).
    • Symbolic logic~