Anyone know the backstory behind the Keynes quote of God stepping out of the train at some time?

Wittgenstein! There can only be one!

Yeah, he laughed at Moore and Russel with "You so dumb you don't get this shit."

Then he submitted it as his dissertation and people were like, OK.

The Tractatus is not a language game. It is reality described in words without metaphysics.

Well, it's falsification all the way down with scientific theories. Verificationism failed where falsification vindicated it. Sad.

But not only about the world. After all, although the world is everything that is the case, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. So, there are things about which we cannot speak

The Tractatus is also about that of which we must be silent, despite saying nothing on the topic.

The Investigations is also about that silence.

Wittgenstein realised the limitations of the Tractatus, resulting in the Investigations; which starts with a critique of the approach taken in the Tractatus. The Investigations lays out the background of language against which a work such as the Tractatus must take place; and shows it to be a word game; in the process Wittgenstein makes use of analytic tools showing the limitations of philosophical enquiry.

He turns the Tractatus, and other philosophical systems, into parlour games. — Banno

Actually, the Investigations was an elaboration on the Tractatus. Wittgenstein says it himself in the opening pages of the Investigations.

This would be considered a category error even by Wittgenstein. Facts aren't true. Truth is a property not of facts, but of propositions. — Agustino

Facts are always true.

This is merely a cop-out. I went through your argument and showed you why your premises don't stack up, especially on Wittgenstein's premises. — Agustino

Not at all. The PoSR applies to any statement made about the world.

The Tractatus is a work about the world. The Investigations can be understood as how we interpret and understand the world.

Circularity isn't the only issue. Meaning doesn't require truth to have meaning at all. Truth is a property of propositions. Propositions are true if they represent an actual state of affairs. Propositions have meaning even when they are false. The only time when they lack meaning is when they are tautologies or contradictions - then they are nonsense. — Agustino

Every objective statement is a proposition verified by science.

No. They obtain their meaning from the relations they portray between objects as being the case. If this relationship is identical to the one found in the world, then they are also true. But the meaning is the picture they create - whether that picture is true - ie corresponds to the facts - is a different story. — Agustino

That's the same thing I said just said a different way. Facts are always true.

Why would an argument be required? "Outside is raining" doesn't require a grounding argument/reason at all to be true. All that is required is that such a situation obtains in the world. — Agustino

If you apply the principle of sufficient reason, then everything can be reasoned away ad infinitium. Platonism is the fundamental truth upon which all else stands.

Quaint to say for an admirer of Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was thoroughly anti-Platonic. — Agustino

I have had a hard time seeing this argument as true. My reasoning goes;
1.Meaning requires truth to have meaning. (circular but true)
2.All objective statements obtain their meaning from the state of affairs they are (subject and object) in the world.
3.For objective statements to be true, a grounding argument/reason is required.
4.A grounding argument can be provided that all that is real is Platonic. Nothing comes before the Platonic forms. (No infinite regress or issues with 'interpretation' of meaning, there is a language at play of 'mathematics' and everything simply is in motion due to it) addendum (it would seem paradoxical that what is Platonic is in some sense 'grounding', however, that seems to be the case given the instrumentality of mathematics in describing the world)
5.Thus truth is grounded in the extravagant nuances of mathematics at play in the world presenting itself in the state of affairs everything is in in moments of time throughout time.

Ahh, but on what grounds have these disagreements arisen? I feel as if it were a matter of taste and feelings, eh? Not everyone buys into his pessimism, although the pessimist can never be more wrong than wrong.

I'm not sure. — Heister Eggcart

I think Schopenhauer has this magical ability to convince anyone he is true and right. I feel in love with him after reading his aphorisms.

Meister Eggfart,

Become a Schopenhauer fan, you know it's good for you.

Is it?

Stuck in a loop:

That's really an amazing tune.

Sorry, my math skills ended at Calc III and so with it my hopes of becoming an engineer. Wish I got to do the fun stuff, like linear algebra...

You tell me. I suspect curved relative to distant objects occupying the space-time continuum.

Maybe I should add "normal humans". Then there are the John Von Neumann's...

That humans can't conceptualize curved space.

I believe Schopenhauer wouldn't disagree about curved space; but, would rather say that humans don't have the capacity to conceptualize it.

This is obviously a false assumption to make.

Well, that's because politics is still not an online thing. Us, or rather, me "kids" like to joke around and play around with those fun meme's and such. The internet is primarily a form of escapism from reality, or at the very least tends to distort it, warp, and modify it to make us feel good.

I suppose where your mind is "changed" is when you view the TV or talk at the workplace. Even though reality is thoroughly distorted on TV, as Chomsky would say, you still find the majority of voters making up their minds through manufactured consent. Why this didn't win this time according to Hillary's wishes is still being researched and debated.

Yes, but, nothing can be said about it. Nothing has no properties.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

When you say it 'should not' be used in ordinary language, do you mean the meanings expressed in sentences using 'nothing' should not be expressed at all, or that those sentences really mean something else, and, ideally, people should alter their usage to reflect that? — csalisbury

Sure it has connotative meaning, but apart from that if we assume its actual meaning (denotative) then it has no use in that sense.

More examples,

I feel nothing about this matter/situation/state of affairs.

Nothing is bothering me.

Nothing you can say will persuade me otherwise.

My personal stance on the matter is that 'nothing' should not be used in ordinary language. There are few examples in the real world where nothing can mean anything useful apart from creating distortions.

See, the problem with nothing is that it creates more confusion than utility, when used out of formalized and logical systems.

I think about things in terms of all or nothing.
I have nothing.
There's nothing you or I can do.
I feel like I'm worth nothing.
Nothing in this world is XYZ.
Nothing interests me.
The set of 'nothing' does or does not exist.

Really?! You're willowz?! I remember that guy. — Sapientia

Yeah, I kinda changed a lot since then. I guess L. Wittgenstein does that to you. Quietism for the win!

Arrived at PF first as "willowz", got banned and came back as Q~uestion. Now I'm here as 'Question'...

Kinda funny...

I think Wittgenstein's earlier work is something that can be referenced here.

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.

And the elimination of metaphysics from language.

Is it a fact that 2+2=4?

My point is that the answer to the question in the OP is that the question itself is grammatically erroneous; with the corollary that facts are not the sort of thing that can be true or false. — Banno

Well, it's hard to disagree with states of affairs. Provided, Joe believes that it is not raining outside, when actually it is, then facts are always true, if they weren't then we'd all be solipsists arguing over what red, white, and blue really look like with other solipsists.

See.

It is asking the correct use of the word 'fact' — Banno

Natural response is:
What is the correct use of the word 'fact'?

Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values, they are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world.

Does anyone else notice the ambiguity and quite actually contradiction in terms in the bolded text?

How can a fact be an object of certain mental states? This is gibberish.

Although it seems ... obvious to say, "Truth is correspondence of thought (belief, proposition) to what is actually the case", such an assertion nevertheless involves a metaphysical assumption - that there is a fact, object, or state of affairs, independent of our knowledge to which our knowledge corresponds.

See, and here is the gist of the issue. Assuming that facts are always true turns truth into a metaphysical concept of "perceiving the world correctly" or "as it actually is". There is no escape from the fact that facts cannot be asserted without an observer, and this turns truth into a noumenon.

So does that make truth relativistic? One can believe something; but, it may actually* not be true.

*Notice how 'actually' keeps on popping up, whether one likes it or not.

Yes, the counterargument is that 'in reality' something is the fact of the matter. Using such a terms as 'in reality' or 'actually' just shift the problem to another word, namely 'in reality' or 'actually'.