on the tractactus

[black magick hustla]

question.

discussions here has arroused my interest on tractactus and other works of formal logic.

is the tractactus very difficult to understand, and if so, would you recommend me reading it with guides?

thanks

[Comrade J]

I guess you mean Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus Logico Philosophicus?'

I read excerpts from this recently in A2 Religious Studies/Philosophy as we're studying language and its use, and it really is quite complicated material, so there may be some things you won't fully grasp so a guide could be handy, especially as he has such an odd (and sometimes incoherent) way of explaining things. On the other hand, I don't know your level of intelligence so you might be alright reading it without any sort of accompanying text.

[Bretty123]

Marmot I've been picking Rosa's brain on this text and other related to it for quite some time now. You should refer a few threads down for my thread on the Tractatus.


-Brett.

[ComradeRed]

is the tractactus very difficult to understand, and if so, would you recommend me reading it with guides? I think it helps if you know mathematical logic before you begin, thats just me. I've read it several times and each time it seems different.

It's not something to be taken lightly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot, the Tractatus is not at all easy, since it is a highly compressed work.

I recommend you read it very slowly and use Roger White's guide -- it is the most accurate and clearest introduction so far written.

Details here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58280

You need to know a little modern logic though.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2006 05:56 am
Marmot, the Tractatus is not at all easy, since it is a highly compressed work.

I recommend you read it very slowly and use Roger White's guide -- it is the most accurate and clearest introduction so far written.

Details here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58280

You need to know a little modern logic though.
Thanks.

I am reading right now some introductions to analytical philosophy in order to tackle the Tractatus later. I think it is really fascinating the way they try to destroy metaphysics in order to create a lucid philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fine, but you need to remember that for all sorts of reasons, many, if not most, analytic philosophers have back-sassed of late, and are happy to indulge in metaphysics -- albeit of a highly technical variety.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2006 06:56 am
Marmot, the Tractatus is not at all easy, since it is a highly compressed work.


It's also, according to he what wrote it, meaningless. Although it was the only work he saw fit to publish.

And that's not the only contradiction. Apparently, as the founder of "ordinary language philosophy" he also claimed that it could take perhaps 500 years before anyone would understand his work :blink:

And to think some people think this mixed-up, introverted, sexually repressed, reclusive bourgeois, who could not face engagement with the world, holds the key to a truly proletarian, deHegelianized Marxism. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: still peddling the same fibs?


It's also, according to he what wrote it, meaningless. Although it was the only work he saw fit to publish.

As I noted on the other thread, he di not say this, as you would know if you checked stuff before you decide to make things up.


And that's not the only contradiction. Apparently, as the founder of "ordinary language philosophy" he also claimed that it could take perhaps 500 years before anyone would understand his work

Given that someone as logically-challenged as you cannot even read simple sentences correctly, if it were left to you, it would probably take 5000 years.

And now we get the character assassination (your only 'argument'):


And to think some people think this mixed-up, introverted, sexually repressed, reclusive bourgeois, who could not face engagement with the world, holds the key to a truly proletarian, deHegelianized Marxism

And Hegel was a model of socialist rectitude: a coal miner, a worker militant and a friend of anti-statist forces everyhere.

But worse: look what Hegel has done to your brain; you can't even read properly.

[I'd say he has done us all a favour; you are no threat to anyone in such a parlous state].

[Hit The North]

R:


And Hegel was a model of socialist rectitude: a coal miner, a worker militant and a friend of anti-statist forces everyhere.


I know of no socialist who would claim Hegel as a comrade. Who's "peddling fibs" now?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I know of no socialist who would claim Hegel as a comrade. Who's "peddling fibs" now?

I think I learnt this trick from you.

Thanks!

[Bretty123]

And that's not the only contradiction. Apparently, as the founder of "ordinary language philosophy" he also claimed that it could take perhaps 500 years before anyone would understand his work

He wasn't the founder. His later work [Philosophical Investigations] inspired the movement.

Your mistaken.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Your mistaken.

You will soon realise that Dialectical Mystics are never mistaken; because they have a hot-line to Hegel's 'Absolute' (which they have given a pretend spin through 180 degrees), they have the final truth.

So, you need to show more respect to these semi-divine souls, and remember your place.

[Bretty123]

Sorry I am not worthy. If you'll excuse me I'm not well versed in theological studies.


Best regards to all the poisoners [Priests!]


-Brett.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2006 05:51 pm
Bretty:


Your mistaken.

You will soon realise that Dialectical Mystics are never mistaken; because they have a hot-line to Hegel's 'Absolute' (which they have given a pretend spin through 180 degrees), they have the final truth.

So, you need to show more respect to these semi-divine souls, and remember your place.
Once again, Rosa, I have never read Hegel and never intend to. I need him almost as little as I need Wittgenstein.

Now stop making things up.

Bretty:


He wasn't the founder. His later work [Philosophical Investigations] inspired the movement.

Your mistaken.

Well, you're knit-picking, but I'm perfectly willing to accept I'm mistaken on this point. Still, you should never let the facts get in the way of a decent rhetorical point. Ask Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Once again, Rosa, I have never read Hegel and never intend to. I need him almost as little as I need Wittgenstein.

Now stop making things up.

I am glad to see you are a self-made mystic then.

Sort of makes you even less important, if you see what I mean.


Well, you're knit-picking, but I'm perfectly willing to accept I'm mistaken on this point. Still, you should never let the facts get in the way of a decent rhetorical point. Ask Rosa.

And I am quite happy to admit, in public, in front of all these good people, my heinous crimes: yes, I own up, I have copied far too much off Citizen Z, who ignores facts far better than I could ever wish to emulate.