Of That Which I Cannot Speak . . . | Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Routledge Classics)

not quite rorschach | Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Routledge Classics) | Ludwig Wittgenstein

books:


	• Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Routledge Classics) Ludwig Wittgenstein Routledge, 2001 - 128 pages average customer review:based on 43 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Logic and Mysticism

I read this book in college and loved it. It's beautiful, but you have to know a bit about symbolic logic to appreciate it. The last few pages are really elegant. He writes of ethics: "the world of an evil man must be different than the world of good man." And of mysticism that "the fact that the world exists, that is the mystical."

Wittgenstein's mysticism can be summed up like this. The word "hornet" connects somehow with the real insect, but, when I try to explain what the connection is, I am left with nonsense--this is the mystic--it is how the world is "this is the mystical."

He writes only a few lines about God, but I think he acomplishes more than most writers on this subject, since, as he points out in his "motto": "All that a man knows can be said in three words."

for more information click here

Of That Which I Cannot Speak . . .

I must remain silent. I often feel this way about my girlfriend's cooking. Wittgenstein's probably the most misunderstood 20th century philosopher (which he fully realized was inherent to the Tractatus [i.e., he realized no one can understand what it is he has to say; that is, and isn't, the point]) there is and the Tractatus is one reason why. Bertrand Russell wasn't even fully aware of this, which is evident from his (elucidating) introduction. However, if you read this book and understand it you will have achieved a level of understanding (perhaps of genius caliber) for which Wittgenstein fully realized no one was capable. Therefore read it if only to find out that you are a genius. As for me, I'm gonna ask my girlfriend if I can cook tonight.

for more information click here

not quite rorschach

Wittgenstein is a logician and TLP is a work in logic. That's not to say that first-time readers will find a textbook in the style of, say, Church or Enderton. (This much is obvious from various mentions here of mathematical logic and mysticism in the same breath). The flavor is very different and it's not easy to say what is the source of this difference. One way to start would be to note that TLP is a part of the Kantian project, in fact its conclusion. It responds directly to Frege and Russell, but it's essentially a transcendental argument with roots in Kant's great Critique. So readers unacquainted with Frege and Russell, and with Kant, may find TLP bewildering - but it's bewildering enough in any case, so take heart! Risking presumption, I'd advise the following first approach to this very unusual book: just follow your nose. Don't bother too much, for example, about the numbering scheme or the order of presentation, simply follow what threads interest you going back and forth.

for more information click here

for more information click here

Not a book to be read

This is a very strange book. It is also very beautiful. Logic, ethics, and everything spanned by these two subjects is covered.

But the book itself isn't important. See the penultimate proposition: all the previous propositions are nonsense--a "ladder" intended to help you "climb out of the hole" of philosophical misunderstanding. Once this is done the ladder can be thrown away. (I recommend keeping your copy, just in case you fall in the hole again).

The final proposition, therefore the only nonsensical one, is Proposition 7: Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.

for more information click here

heavy

This work of complex philosopical thought is said to have (in the author's words) solved all of the philosophical prolbems of the time. Reportedly, three philosophy instructors resigned, feeling that there no longer existed a reason to philosophize as a consequence after having read the work. This, in itself, should be reason for inquiry into the text.

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, page 7, 8, 9

hot