You can do whatever you want. I'm just saying if you have a better interpretation of his work, explain it, but I'm moving forward.

You can do whatever you want. I'm just saying if you have a better interpretation of his work, explain it, but I'm moving forward. — Sam26

"Moving forward" implies you don't want a discussion. Is it because you find my commentary distasteful or you just don't like the point of a forums.. which is discussion? Or is it that, you think that threads in forums are simply for one's own commentary, and no one else's? All of these seem odd to me.

My opinion is that you don't understand the Tractatus, so no, I'm not going to discuss it with you.

My opinion is that you don't understand the Tractatus, so no, I'm not going to discuss it with you. — Sam26

Ah, an elitist. School me, bro... Use Tractatus to prove Tractatus and show me.

It's a waste of time. :gasp:

In your estimation, unless you agree with most of the Tractatus' premises, you cannot have a discussion.

What a dick way to go about this forum.

Just write a summary of the Tractatus, maybe I'm wrong.

Just write a summary of the Tractatus, maybe I'm wrong. — Sam26

This is my problem with this kind of CIRCLE JERKING thread.. Just KNOWING the premise of the Tractatus doesn't impute that it is RIGHT.

Let's hear your summary, write something instead of making silly statements.

Let's hear your summary, write something instead of making silly statements. — Sam26

No because everything I say is liable to be said, "Thus interpreted wrong.. so I am not going to communicate with you". I commented on your summary of Wittgenstein's statement about "facts" and metaphysics and gave my commentary on your summary. I did NOT question your summary, I went with it, and made my own evaluation of it.

But you will always make a move (a bad faith one) where you say, if you look a bit harder at Wittgenstein, you see he has ALL the answers. It's like people proving the Bible by using the Bible...

For fuck's sake :roll: .. No answer.. What I thought.

My purpose in creating this summary is not to necessarily debate with people about this or that interpretation, but to just summarize the main points in the Tractatus. There is a lot to disagree with in the Tractatus, but that again is not the point of the summary. If you want to engage, write up a summary, which is what the thread is about, and state in your summary why you think this or that interpretation is incorrect citing the Tractatus. It's not about what you or I disagree with in the Tractatus, at least in this thread.

For people like me who think a lot about what Wittgenstein said I find it challenging to understand his early thinking as compared to his later thinking. It's interesting to trace his thinking throughout his life.

As far as engaging with you on this or that idea, I don't engage that much with people anymore. I do here and there, but not consistently. So don't take it personally.

Since language is used to communicate our ideas it's very important to incorporate linguistic analysis into our thinking as philosophers. It's the starting point of any good philosophical investigation. It's his later philosophy that's most important, along with J.L. Austin's thinking.

y purpose in creating this summary is not to necessarily debate with people about this or that interpretation, but to just summarize the main points in the Tractatus. — Sam26

Gotcha, I realized that after, but you also inspired me to write a whole other thread that I think is important in regards to Witt, and I'm sure you've seen by now...

As I said in that thread:

Eh, for some it seems to be solely about the author's perspective. Perhaps this comes from how I approach most philosophy, which is jumping off points for how one's own thinking relates, contends, or aligns with the author. Analysis is necessary and a good didactic exercise, but I see it as the starting point for later doing synthesis, comparison, and ultimately, evaluation. I guess that butts up against other, more static approaches to the primary text (or secondary literature that often is employed with those like Witt, Nietzsche, Derrida, Heidegger, and the like...).

May I ask why the need to simply summarize without commentary? Is it like a SparkNotes by PhilosophyForum thing?

I create some of my threads for people to visit if they want more information on a particular topic. I feel somewhat qualified since I've been studying Wittgenstein for years. People aren't always going to agree with me, but that's the nature of the subject matter. Besides most people who give a commentary don't understand even the most basic aspects of the Tractatus. They just want to express their opinion, that's fine, but it's not good information.

The thread's textual exegesis of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. That includes debate about what passages mean. Debating the broader significance is tangential. If you feel unable or unwilling to have a textual discussion in a textual thread, @schopenhauer1, I don't know what to say!

I did some of that if you read the thread. However, it's up to me whether I want to engage on this or that interpretation.

I did some of that if you read the thread. — Sam26

Aye. I recall.

If you feel unable or unwilling to have a textual discussion in a textual thread, I don't know what to say! — fdrake

I'm not sure why you would make such a statement. You've witnessed me in several of the threads on Wittgenstein. When have I been unwilling to generally engage? I may not engage with everyone, but I've engaged with people in my threads, including you. So, I don't know what to say.

I'm not sure why you would make such a statement. You've witnessed me in several of the threads on Wittgenstein. When have I been unwilling to generally engage? I may not engage with everyone, but I've engaged with people in my threads, including you. So, I don't know what to say. — Sam26

It was directed to schop. Not you. I edited the post to make that clearer afterwards.

Ahh, my error.

:up:

Here is the thread.. Feel free to comment..

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15218/wittgenstein-and-how-it-elicits-asshole-tendencies

Also mine for lack of clarity. You were being attentive and responded to garbled words.

:up:

Given Wittgenstein's logic about what can be said within the limits of the world of facts, anything that goes beyond the world of facts (beyond the propositions of natural science) is metaphysical and outside the limit of what can be said. — Sam26

Witt says:

"The totality of true propositions is the total natural science (or the totality of the natural sciences)" (4.11)

But, language can convey possible states of affairs that are not true. Witt does not limit what can be said to the domain of science, but rather science is a smaller domain within the larger domain of possible natural language.

For example, philosophy doesn't simply seclude itself to true facts like science does. Which is why Witt says:

"Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences.
(The word 'philosophy' must mean something which stands above or below, but not beside the natural sciences.)" (4.111)

Philosophy does not discover which propositions are true, or engage in simply reiterating scientific propositions.... it only clarifies what can be said.

"The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts.
Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.
A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations.
The result of philosophy is not a number of "philosophical propositions", but to make propositions clear.
Philosophy should make clear and delimit sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred" (4.112).

It is only whereof we cannot speak clearly thereof we must remain silent, and philosophy's aim is to clarify and make clear what is said, not to put forward true statements like science. Metaphysical speculation, if tethered to reality in some fashion, could be one manner of clarification, I think.

Witt does not limit what can be said to the domain of science, but rather science is a smaller domain within the larger domain of possible natural language. — 013zen

Which statements support this interpretation?

Which statements support this interpretation? — Paine

Without having to dig out the quotes that explain that a proposition is a possible state of affairs, I hope this helps:

"The totality of propositions is the language" (4.001)

"The totality of true propositions is the total natural science (or the totality of the natural sciences)" (4.11) — 013zen

That statement does not say:

science is a smaller domain within the larger domain of possible natural language — 013zen

Did you want a quote that said that word for word?

He says all propositions are language and all true propositions are science, therefore language is a larger domain and science is a smaller within that domain.

Where does he say all propositions are language?
They all are language, of course.
But your reading of "domains" is not in the text.

Where does he say all propositions are language? — Paine

"The totality of propositions is the language" (4.001) — 013zen

But your reading of "domains" is not in the text. — Paine

What would a better word be?