Nietzsche seems to have a few things to say upon this IIRC. I remember having to look up "atavism" from a song I really liked a long time ago, and I believe the first time I've ever seen it used was by Nietzsche. His book Twilight of the Idols, although I've only skimmed through it, seems as if it may be apt to this discussion. I'll crack open some dusty old books to try and find more for the discussion. It's weird, your name Isomorph makes me want to open Godel Escher Bach because that's the first time I encountered the word isomorphism, that I can remember. It makes me wonder if I came to this post because of knowing about Nietzsche's book Twilight of the Idols, and the titled of the post reminded me of said book. Like why do I click on any of these things? Desire, to do so sure, but it's like a desire for what? I wonder if we can learn to understand the types of desires that seemingly catalyze within us, as they occur. Maybe that's kinda what stoicism is all about?

See how facts change? The fact: Tractatus is positivism simply by the first few lines. And according to sources it was only ever hailed as a masterpiece of philosophy by Positivists. Saying it's not positivism, at least to me, is like suggesting you're not a Christian for following the doctrine of Christ. They may not be a "church going Christian" but they're still a "Christian." A pig is a pig regardless of its make up. If it's not positivism, defend how it's not with something other than a deflection? Show us how it's not.

A fact, is what is the case. — 013zen

What is the case is often subject to perspective.

The idea that Witt had a distinct early and late period wherein he outrightly dismissed his previous work developed when there was still good reason to wonder if the work was "pro-positivistic"....which the PI clearly is not. — 013zen

If PI was clearly not pro-positivistic, but Tractatus is, then doesn't that espouse more than a marginal shift in stance?

And of course, doesn't all of this rely upon Wittgenstein's presupposition of what a "fact" is? Doesn't Wittgenstein himself later overturn the logic of the Tractatus once he realizes the inherent bias in his presupposition? Melanie Klein, for example, her discovery of partial objects shows that objects don't always have a fixed static form.

The infinite staircase appears to only allow one to traverse it in one direction. It simultaneously exists and doesn't exist? Does this make sense? If we allow Hilbert's Hotel to exist in the abstract and possible realm, are we forced to accept the infinite staircase into the abstract and possible realm? Is this actually a paradox? What are your thoughts? — keystone

Icarus was a Greek. To the Greek, and especially the Stoics, time is an infinite circle, and they (many of the Stoics) thought that everything repeats after a full cosmic cycle. Such that all paths hitherto, and all paths henceforth have and will be a reality. Even if reality doesn't work that way, the emotional effect of believing in such a thing allows one to overcome hardships by accepting them as part of the necessary path they are currently on, and that anyway of overcoming that obstacle is correct as all paths henceforth will eventually play out. It's quite similar to several quantum theories.

It would be like trying to cut you with air, and without any force behind the air.