General

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

vive la insurrection — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:32:09 GMT

Part III is out:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28961/466666.aspx#466666

Previous parts

I: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28892.aspx

II: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28927/466059.aspx#466059

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

Smiling Dave — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:37:16 GMT

'1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything

else remain the same.'

what does this mean?

I think in 1.2 [=The world divides into facts] he is dividing his "logical space" into what Rusell in the intro "atomic facts". Here he is aying that these atomic facts are independent of each other [meaning there could exist possible concrete universes where any combination of truth or falsity of the atomic facts would be the case].

Here is Russell:

Facts may contain parts which are facts or may contain no such parts; for example: “Socrates was a wise Athenian”, consists of the two facts, “Socrates was wise”, and “Socrates was an Athenian.” A fact which has no parts that are facts is called by Mr. Wittgenstein a Sachverhalt. This is the same thing that he calls an atomic fact. An atomic fact, although it contains no parts that are facts, nevertheless does contain parts.

Also:

A proposition (true or false) asserting an atomic fact is called an atomic proposition. All atomic propositions are logically independent of each other. No atomic proposition implies any other or is inconsistent with any other.

[Technical note: The latter quote of Russell's dicusses atomic propositions, [not atromic facts] and asserts they are independent of each other. But that of course is because the atomic facts themselves are independent of each other, which is what Witt is asserting in 1.21].

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

vive la insurrection — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:11:44 GMT

here is Part II:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28927/466059.aspx#466059

Here is Part I:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28892.aspx

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

Autolykos — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:01:48 GMT

I think I can be in on this as well.

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

Meistro — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:48:33 GMT

'1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything

else remain the same.'

what does this mean?

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

vive la insurrection — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:34:46 GMT

Maybe to help keep focus I / we can just post different sections every few days and use this as the "Meta thread" to provide a link to all of the book and other secondary discussions on the group.

Here is the 1st section:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28892/465495.aspx#465495

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

vive la insurrection — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:14:57 GMT

This looks very interesting! I'm in! When we all finish Tractatus, would it make sense to read Philosophical Investigations afterwards?

I was hoping too. I think it's the more interesting of the two - and it's fun to think about how they relate to each other. But one thing at a time. I do think Tractus has to be looked at 1st

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:38:21 GMT

Good Idear. I found a review that says that PI basically rebukes Tractatus. If nothing else then it could help to solidify understanding of Tractatus as a critical supplement.

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

gotlucky — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:31:24 GMT

This looks very interesting! I'm in! When we all finish Tractatus, would it make sense to read Philosophical Investigations afterwards?

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

Clayton — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:46:52 GMT

I think 1.13 should be 1.1.3 if you were going to be picky but apparently he just abbreviated it and expected that this should be understood.

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

vive la insurrection — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 02:22:30 GMT

Right,

it's an outline. Think

II. W

A.X

1. Y

a. z

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:14:09 GMT

OH. I didn't realize that it was a subsection. So 1.1 is title of the proof and 1.13 is the conclusion of said proof?

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

Clayton — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:12:04 GMT

That Old Guy: The Tractatus is kind of weird - the sub-headings should be understood as "supporting" the higher-level headings. So, 1.1 because 1.13 but not 1.13 because 1.1.

Clayton -

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:40:03 GMT

Quick notice on Prop 1.1&1.13. Is this not circular reasoning?

1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these begin all the facts.

1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.

Re: Wittgenstein Tractus discussion group

vive la insurrection — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:16:48 GMT

A notice on the general outline - hese propositions are odd and obscure as stand alnones - the rest of the book is required to make sense of them

but here is what the structure is saying:

- what the world is

- what a fact is

-what a thought is

- "the meat" is on propositions is (4, 5, 6)

- The point of the book

It should be striking to the readert hat over half the book deals with propositions