What if anger is expressed love, just in another way?

This is an interesting concept I'd hope anyone could entertain.

To hammer the point home, the closest comparison of Wittgenstein that comes to my mind would be of Van Gogh.

His saint status is quite deserved through his contributions to the humanities and his existential quest for searching the meaning of (or) being a 'human' and what that constitutes (paradoxically never revealed in his philosophy despite his very Schopenhauerian personality). Here is just a quote from Keynes:

When Ludwig Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge University in 1929 John Maynard Keynes declared, "Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train".

Keynes wasn't just any ordinary fellow for the matter.

I strongly suspect through my readings of Wittgenstein and knowledge about his personality through first and second-hand accounts is that he had a high level of (and I mean this sincerely) autism or high-level functioning Aspergers syndrome.

Despite many claims that he led a miserable existence, I think he found happiness in his sorrows and loneliness. He declared on his deathbed, "Tell them, I have had a wonderful life."

I think the Promethean allegory is apt in summarizing Wittgenstein's contributions and persona. A great man, indeed.

Going a little deeper, I feel like Wittgenstein internalized to a degree and extent unseen before of all philosophers before him. One can find Aristotelian, Utilitarian, Kantian, Nietzschian, Spinoza, Hegelian, Schopenhaur'ian, Socratic qualities in most of his works - possibly due to hating himself and doing away with his own ego/id, replacing it with a superhuman superego. I seem fixated on the fellow and to a great degree and extent revere him, just as many people who had the opportunity to meet him had also.

The Vienna Circle alone, with such utterly brilliant minds as Godel, Schlick, Carnap, Quine, Neurath all participated and read the Tractatus, not once; but, twice in reverence for the logical insight Wittgenstein had about the world. Godel never said that Wittgenstein had an influence over him in shaping his views; but, I suspect that to be false at face value. If anything, Wittgenstein's views were a template upon which he probably based most of his thoughts about logic and the meaning of truth.

I have always wondered if Wittgenstein was ever influenced by Charles Sanders Peirce or William James with their views on pragmatism during his transitional period from the Tractatus to the Investigations.

Well, you might be oversimplifying the matter here to a bare set of psychological needs or desires; but, Wittgenstein was driven by his doubts and uncertainties about life/the world/and human interaction. I wouldn't go down a slippery slope and overgeneralize that all of his work are just rationalizations of his particular set of circumstances culminating his existence.

For example, his work on the foundations of mathematics is only beginning to be appreciated by academics. There's still a plethora of insights he discovered that are still being appreciated to this day. I'll post more about his work on the foundations of the world as described in his Tractatus soon if anyone is still interested. It's really an eye-opening book if you understand his work as analogous to how a Turing computer works.

So, here is my take on the Tractatus that I have understood thus far. Anyone is welcome to criticise it or provide feedback.

The world is composed of facts, which are further composed of objects, which are elementary and simple.

Facts in the world are the atomic propositions each object has in relation to each other.

The world is the sum total of all atomic propositions presented in logical form.

Nonsense arises when we try and depict things that have no material relation to objects and facts.

Further, nonsense is what arises when one tries to depict facts that cannot be depicted within the same logical space. So to speak a metalanguage would be required to make statements about a lower class of atomic facts and propositions, one which we can't inherently know of itself, thus the claim that this work itself is an effort in futility and the needs to throw away the ladder once climbing upon this new understanding.

Logical space is a construct (one can think of it as a Cartesian plane), where what is logical are the facts between every element within that system.

'Logical form' and propositions exist as pictures that are composed of atomic facts. Pictures can't depict their own meaning supporting the claim that nonsense arises when one tries to depict a picture within that picture or within logical space.

Whereof one can't speak, thereof one ought to remain silent.

Wow, nice to find someone interested in the field.

Well, there's also the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project that is open source with no gimmicks. Then there's Brillouin energy. I never liked Rossi and his game of 'cat and mouse' if you get the reference. I still think there's legitimate science behind the claims, unlike something that Blacklightpower has pulled out of their ass wit hydrinos (makes me want to laugh). Time will eventually tell.

I've been following a scientific breakthrough that happened only recently that has tremendous potential to disrupt the current energy landscape. It's called LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) that was first demonstrated by Pons and Fleischman and was called at the time 'Cold Fusion'. Since around some 30 or so years, the debacle that ensued after the inability of many scientists to reproduce their (Pons and Fleischman's experiment) things have calmed down again and some renewed research has followed in the field.

Now, a guy called Andrea Rossi claims to have a working LENR device that has quite considerable energy densities and COP and temperature achievable all while using abundant and cheap fuel (Mainly Nickel).

Around 2011 is when I became convinced that this was real science when the U.S NAVY and soon later Toyota acknowledged the legitimacy of this new field and is actively researching how (probably) to utilize this technology apart from other pet research projects (e.g Polywell devices, etc.).

The future looks really bright despite the usual gloom and doom you hear... just about everywhere nowadays.

Then there are companies like 'Lockheed' and 'General Fusion' that are actively working on fusion devices and are making headway.

Finally, if all else fails we can always rely on dirt-cheap solar panels from China or soon domestically spray on solar paint.

To be honest, at this point, there is so much technological progress and innovation that the only thing holding us back is a lack of vision, not funds, and the powers that be (coal & oil lobbies). They can only stifle progress; but, there will be a tipping point sooner or later at which the U.S' hand will be forced when other countries choose to adopt clean energy technology simply out of economic reasons. Just a matter of time at this point.

Wittgenstein would assert Moore's 'Here is one hand' argument to radical skepticism. It goes like this:

Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore, an external world exists.

This commonsensical approach negates the need for exact definitions that constitute the entirety of facts that would be required to fulfill epistemological criteria required by skeptics to warrant the truth of a proposition that supposes the existence of consciousness or a conscious entity (notice that 'conscious' and 'entity' are practically synonymous by all means and purposes) own assertions about existing irrespective of whether such a conscious entity is an all-knowing God or a simple ant. You can reword it to suit your needs, like:

I know that I think because I have no grounds to doubt.
Therefore, I think.
I think asserts that I exist.
I think, therefore I am.

If one doesn't buy into P3, then if one really feels like it, they can assert solipsism; but, that still doesn't negate the fact that to think and existing are not mutually independent. Or rather, there are no grounds to assert otherwise unless you believe in p-zombies.

Where does this emergent property exist though? — intrapersona

In the brain, where else?

Qualia is needed for proof of emotional reception... — intrapersona

Qualia are what one can describe as phenomenological experience. It is unique for every individual. Even identical twins will experience the color 'red' differently; but, never be able to know the difference between how another person experiences it apart from agreeing on the social convention that the word 'red' entails what they mean. This is different than the fact that 'red' is the color with the wavelength of 650 nm.

Qualia are epiphenomena or emergent properties distinct for every human being; but, shared through language. Nothing private there as long as there is a consensus about what we are talking about, which is always open to revision.

I thought that depended on solving the riddle of consciousness first. — intrapersona

That problem can be solved ad hoc by a simulation of the entire workings of the human brain. This will be as close to real AI as one can get.

I was thinking of majoring in cog sci but am declining because it is too statistics based and mostly writing up lab reports on stats. — intrapersona

Yes, there's a bunch of stats and data analysis involved; but, you aren't confined to work in a lab analyzing results on behavioral tests on humans if you don't want to. It's just (and no offence to the psych majors) a more valuable degree than one in psychology alone.

I agree. I tend to think programming will become an obsolete profession in the not too distant future given the advent of AI. But, just as people need sometimes psychologists or psychiatrists, so will an AI if it decides we aren't a threat to it or if it decides to co-exist with us. I just hope we can emulate emotions in an AI machine...

You can always side major in cognitive science. I've long thought about that; but, that field is increasingly requiring some computational knowledge also if you don't want to flat out go for psychology.

It's not impossible. I'm learning some Python every day (and struggling to sustain the attention to keep my mind in line with the logical rigor it requires; but, you never know unless you try). It's hard, yes - but eventually, once you get the ball rolling I think it takes care of itself.

A picture cannot picture itself, or something along those lines Wittgenstein would say. I think that would be apt in reference to saying anything about that which cannot be said will lead to non-sense.

I would like to confess. I am weak. Why do I say that?

I have been reading Viktor Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning' and am still trying to grasp the amount of suffering he and the concentration camp prisoners must have gone through. He emphasizes the fact that suffering is an inescapable fact of life just as is death. This gives me some perspective on my own problems and they become infinitesimally small relative to what he must have gone through as a Holocaust survivor. I have taken it to heart to keep in mind the insignificant 'problems' I feel and encounter externally and internally. Too long I have been perceiving myself relative to other people. Rather one should set as a reference point the toils and labors Frankel describes in his book. It really is an eye opener to imagine oneself in his situation and how quickly one would lose all hope and fall into absolute desperation. Yet, he retained his dignity and realized that the question about life should not be framed from the first person; but, rather relative to what life demands from us. That is, to bear one's suffering and actual problems with dignity.

I feel that I have learned to stop complaining and value life not selectively; but, totally, whole, and complete with all negatives.

I have also learned that I should project my belief in stoic virtues not only to that which is external (life), yet, also to the emotions that are negative or unsavory by nature.

Too long have I been using stoicism as a shield from life to guard against.

Thank you all again for your input. I won't be making such posts again if ever at all.

Ah, now I understand. Being able to appreciate and thank BitterCrank for his contributions to this forum and his sound advice is something I return often to.

Could a moderator lock this thread? I would appreciate that greatly.

Thanks for the write-up; but, fat chance I'll be abandoning philosophy, haha. Love lady Sophia too much...

I can recognize a twisted belief when it arises, although that assertion I recognize as somewhat shabby given this thread. I don't have a therapist on hand when I feel like the above, thus me posting here (and it helps for the matter).

Wittgenstein helps me with his therapeutic philosophy of quietism.

If it bothers you I'll be quiet now in accordance with my stoic ethos and Wittgenstianian philosophical upbringing.

:-O — OglopTo

Don't be hatin. They work if you give them enough time. Personally, I like more serotonin than dopamine...

I don't know if it's sound advice; but, you could possibly look into moving to some country you or your wife fancied where your home country currency goes much further. That's what a lot of folks are doing since the incessant increase in prices and inflation eating away at purchasing power (expect that to only increase, unfortunately). It sounds like something you would be able to do and maintain some income via your skills.

Personally, it's my opinion that the modern day computer and the seeming ability to simulate all aspects of reality by it validates everything Wittgenstein has said in the Tractatus. Anyone agree?

Personally, I say for financial security study some programming language alongside philosophy. That seems to be where everything is headed monetary wise.

The problem that Wittgenstein brings up with having recursive meanings is that some object's (simples) are required for there for things to have a meaning independent of other things in order for it to be understood [you can see this line of thinking in Wittgenstein's later use of some things needing to be shown instead of being said or 'described' (thus demolishing Russel's theory of descriptions in one blow), where he, in my opinion, borrows the concept of objects as simples from his previous work, which he never discredits and even reinforces with the example of a 'tool', if anyone recalls, for a builder acting as a placeholder for a simple object].

In other words, and I'm not sure if I can reference essentialism here; but, every object has a property (Wittgenstein uses 'atomic fact' in place of 'property' in the Tractatus along with 'logical form' to be more precise) and that property (atomic fact) is the set of relations that object has with its surroundings. However, referencing Kant for a moment, the sum total of properties (atomic facts) does not entail the object apart from the object itself, meaning that the sum total is something we would wish to know - but - never can, given the infinite state of affairs that object has in logical space (a modern definition could be used here, such as 'Hilbert space,' I don't think Wittgenstein would mind if we made that substitution nowadays given that all the facts about the 'world' are in essence the mathematical measurements one can carry out about two distinct objects in 'Hilbert space'. Furthermore, if one want's to get physical we could substitute 'quanta' for 'objects' in logical space or 'Hilbert space').

Analogously, if we take your argument to the extreme, we could boil it down to a version of Zeno's paradox, which just isn't true.

Yea, same here. Kinda at a loss for words as to what to do or say. My first thought would be to move out from my mother's place and just live on my own; but, I like my living arrangement. Then again, I'm too poor to move out but have a gig lined up for me when I finish this semester at my community college (3-4k a month with living and housing covered, not all that bad given it's something I like doing, meaning supplement company wise). Will see how that goes. Also, have an unfinished project I've been working on for a simple plant fertilizer I've been working on.

If things don't work out work/Philosophy degree wise, I think I will eventually bite the bullet and move to Europe to find some living in Germany/Austria/Scandanavian country. Always something I wanted to do and might find happiness there in Deutschland/Vienna/Oslo. I'd be sure to meet Mayor of Simpleton and chill at the pub or such.

If that doesn't work out then I don't know what then. Might go insane and live a monastic life in India or Tibet.

Endless possibilities, toodledo.

I try. But, thanks for the link. Monty Python FTW.

Hard to do that nowadays and given my financial situation. I know there are very favorable repayment terms and even debt forgiveness for students going all the way to teaching. Too early to say; but, I'm not afraid of debt at least not if I find something I love doing and doing it well.

The result of just dropping your meds all at once can be extremely harsh. — Bitter Crank

Tell me about it. During my stint with benzodiazepines (alprazolam) I quit immediately due to running out (I'm an idiot for that) and experienced twitching and the worst muscle spasm's imaginable. Benzo's are evil (period). Nothing comparable to the brain zaps from SSRI's.

Yeah, I'm on Sertraline and it works well for my needs (anxiety and depression). I also take daily Dexamphetamine for ADD-PI. There's also Latuda as a mood stabilizer [.I have or had (don't really know at this point) SZ (just get very paranoid sometimes)], previously Zyprexa; but, the weight gain and diabetogenic (have a predisposition to diabetes) effects were too much. I feel like I could get off the mood stabilizer now; but, am afraid of some rebound effects...

Those two (Sertraline and Dexamphetamine) are probably my mainstay and I will probably stay on them for the remainder of my life. But, I want to give another chance to be drug-free. If that works all the better.

Your crutch is the word "seems" here. Find out what is before you make a decision about what seems. Otherwise you will have made a rash, ill-informed decision. — Thorongil

Well, it indicates my skepticism in the assertions proposed by my maladaptive and twisted beliefs, I guess that is a good thing? CBT has taught me something at the end of the day...

I've been trying to find solace in logotherapy and find it the best of all therapy's. You can't really expect anything positive without something to strive towards. Hence, I believe CBT can be ineffectual in many cases due to the subject feeling stuck with one's emotions and as if in a never ending war in addressing them, that is negative thought patterns.

My lack of self-esteem or a low sense of confidence is having a party in this thread, can someone lock it now?

Weltschmerz, I can subscribe to that.

I've held that desires are by default unattainable. So, I suppress or leave them unfulfilled. Time to move to Tibet I guess?

You said you used to be an engineer. — darthbarracuda

Oh, no I wish I was one and wanted to be one in the past; but, I'm going full force into philosophy now.

Yet when I'm by myself I'm troubled deeply by many rather scary or dark thoughts, existential and/or intrusive in nature. — darthbarracuda

I've read up on that. It's called the "default mode network" and it usually engages when one is not doing something that requires external input or feedback. I've found CBT helps keep thoughts in check in case you experience the perils of a negative/ruminative DMN.

I don't know, if you're on medication I'd keep taking it and make sure you're taking care of yourself. — darthbarracuda

Well, maybe I've been on too many medications for too long. I might try and talk with my doctor and see what he can recommend. I want to personally switch my medication to something less flattering. Maybe it's time to feel emotions again? I liked feeling non-emotional on SSRI's and amphetamine salts (I'd practically just be a robot doing stuff not paying attention to internal BS), but, I mean you can't push all your emotions down some hole and expect them to disappear.

Nietzsche — darthbarracuda

Ahh, Nietzsche, good ol Nietzsche addressing the Dionysian needs. Might try reading up on him again. I stopped on his 'Thus Sprach Zarathustra"...

Might give him a try again.

I might look like I'm 26; but, boy do I not feel or behave like someone my age. No sex at my age, how's that for a good one? Ha ha, ha... ha... heh, ehh.

To be fair, I'm not all that young anymore (26). I've tried the military (wanted to become a Navy nuclear engineer; but, ended up in the Air Force) and college (a degree in economics). But, I want to go back to college; but, I guess it's my low self-esteem telling you otherwise in the above post and such. I don't feel depressed as others might tell you I am.

Some people just decide to commit suicide, like that, no strings attached. I can already quell some fears in this thread that I won't be doing it. My emotions are fluctuating a little too much since I've come out of depression (I can feel it). I have something to strive towards (the previous topic on majoring in philosophy), it's just that my behavior hasn't adjusted or my negative thought loops are getting rewired.

I will give it some time and see how I feel in a month or so.

Yes, I'm on some pretty heavy drugs (not street drugs) that have helped me in the past; but, as you say am seriously considering getting off them to get in touch with my emotions again. I don't feel hopeless, even though I'm in quite a bind financially from the debt I racked up in college and otherwise...


Thanks for the advice Agustino. A while ago Wittgenstein inspired me to become an engineer; but, learning as I'm not all that great at math (I'm pretty good; but, like I said not great). I'll focus more on thinking less about my emotions and trying to fulfill my dreams of being a professional philosopher.

Cheers and best regards.

Thanks again for the support and advice everyone. You guys instill a positive belief in humanity despite all the negativity about it that one can notice nowadays.

I would do away with all emotions and instead replace them with a cold, machine-like logic. I hate emotions. I don't like dealing with them. Either I'm busy being lazy or fighting my negative emotions with CBT.

I've read about logotherapy, CBT, and the biological roots for the cause of depression and anxiety. Ideally, I would want to become a machine and not deal with emotional problems. Motivated only by progress and advancement.

Ok, sorry for posting here about my issues.

I will try and go over them with a professional. Sorry for making this seem dire. I'm just wary of life and want something certain in my life that is less trivial than the day to day mundane/repetitive/boring. I just don't know what to feel at the moment. Death seems unavoidable and romantic to me at the moment.

All they want me to do is find some new behavioral patterns and immerse myself in some activities. I don't want that. I don't want anything for the matter. Under such circumstances, suicide doesn't seem to me like a bad option.

I don't feel as though my life is meaningless. I live and try and help my mother however I can. From a biological standpoint, I see no reason to interact with people anymore. Neither do I want any women in my life? Philosophy seems to help me; but, it's like I've reached all the answers I was searching for in my life and am content with everything. I don't listen to my desires and I don't want to deal with any future problems. So, if I end it now it would be with a smile, not as an act of desperation.

Maybe I just miss being depressed...

I'm already in therapy and visit a county psychiatrist every month. I've been on SSRI's for a while now combined with some AP's. I'm doing everything or have done everything in my power to resolve my previous depression and it seems to have worked.

I've read that as people come out of depression that is the period when they are most prone to suicide due to a new source of energy bubbling over. I don't feel like this is something that requires medical attention and would rather have people not tell me this is something I need to "fix" or "get better". It would be my own personal decision and something that if I were alive would feel proud about for being so brave...

I'm gonna get some rest and get back to you MU with a more lucid and clear text after I organize the material.

1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.

2 What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.
2.02 The object is simple.

I'll stop there.

There is already metaphysical baggage ( well not really, it's like saying, 'Look, I don't know what air is; but, it's essential for my existence) lumped in proposition 2.02. Basically, according to Wittgenstein (as a fish trying to tell you how water feels like) it is a dare I say inexpressible proposition in language that can't be descriptively measured in isolation, as if one were to tell an alien 'water' is water without showing the ontological placeholder of water itself, this is in essence what logical atomism is about (at least according to Wittgenstein, Russel and Wittgenstein would have a contention here), it manifests its existence when seen in terms of the usage of references to a relational property in logical space (the totality of facts that compose the world, where 'objects' are points on a coordinate plane and 'facts' the relation of one object with another) with objects existing independently as placeholder names, while at the same time having a sense only when used in context.

I hope that wasn't too much. I'm looking for relevant parts of the text to better answer your question.

Logical simples are to be discovered by logicians as Wittgenstein replied when asked about them despite being a logician himself. Does anyone care to take a stab at these logical simples?

When I can't sleep at night I do philosophy and I've noticed that my best philosophical thoughts are born out of sheer frustration at not being able to sleep. Yes, logical simples, are they hinges upon which beliefs can take place as per necessary or conditional situations imposed upon reality via scientific and mathematical truths?

In some sense, logical simples can't get any more foundational, even more so than mathematics that deals with measurement in space. Logical space being another concept I would like to learn more about.