❰Read❯ ➵ Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung Author Ludwig Wittgenstein – Motyourdrive.co.uk

Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung chapter 1 Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung, meaning Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung, genre Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung, book cover Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung, flies Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung, Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung 0666a90e8ac46 Best Books, Logisch Philosophische Abhandlung By Ludwig Wittgenstein This Is Very Good And Becomes The Main Topic To Read, The Readers Are Very Takjup And Always Take Inspiration From The Contents Of The Book Logisch Philosophische Abhandlung, Essay By Ludwig Wittgenstein Is Now On Our Website And You Can Download It By Register What Are You Waiting For Please Read And Make A Refission For You


10 thoughts on “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung

  1. says:

    Donald Trump s latest protestations about having to fight the crooked media remind me of a famous passage from 5.62 of the Tractatus Was der Solipsismus n mlich m e i n t, ist ganz richtig, nur l sst es sich nicht s a g e n, sondern es zeigt sich Dass die Welt m e i n e Welt ist, das zeigt sich darin, dass die Grenzen d e r Sprache der Sprache, die allein ich verstehe die Grenzen m e i n e r Welt bedeuten.In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but it shows itself That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language the language which I understand mean the limits of my world.Donald, I believe I understand what you wish to say Everyone else is crooked everyone else is a loser only you are exempt But somehow you are unable to express these self evident truths except in your internal language Frustrating, isn t it


  2. says:

    Wittgenstein was deathly afraid of uttering nonsense whereas I, clearly, am not how else could I stomach writing so many book reviews This book is a work of high art beautiful, austere, and sweeping Wittgenstein is self consciously attempting to speak the unspeakable in his opinion, at least which is why the language is so succinct and severe He has no use for literary niceties, flowing prose, or extended exposition One gets the feeling that, for Wittgenstein, writing philosophy is repugnant, akin to unclogging a toilet, something he would like to get over with as soon as possible.Come to think of it, the toilet metaphor is especially apt Wittgenstein honestly thinks that the whole of Western philosophy has been literally nonsense, and wishes to free the pipes of thought from all the years of accumulated filth And the coup de gr ce is that, after condemning the philosophical tradition, he condemns his own work The Tractatus is almost meant to be like a purgative you swallow it just to spit everything back up.Wittgenstein has fully mastered the precept that the time one spends arguing a point, the less likely that point seems His conclusions are so sweeping, his sentences so forceful, that one is tempted to unthinkingly agree with him Nevertheless, after some consideration, I doubt that many people accept his conclusions I don t In fact, Wittgenstein s aforementioned fear of saying something nonsensical may be have limited him It s almost as if he had a superstitious fear of transgressing the bounds of sense a superstition all the perplexing because he places its object outside the realm of thought.But, like most good books of philosophy, the Tractatus is rewarding to read even if one doesn t accept its conclusions So, read it, I say Spend time on every sentence, and savor every word, and maybe Wittgenstein will unclog the toilet of your mind.


  3. says:

    What can I say about Tractatus that hasn t been said a million times before Crystalline gnomic dense wrong Well, I don t disagree with any of that, but it would be nice to have an image I ask my subconscious if it can come up with anything, and while I m in the shower it shows me the sequence from Terry Gilliam s 1988 movie The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, where John Neville and Eric Idle build a hot air balloon made entirely from women s lingerie.I am about to smack my subconscious upside the head for its appalling presumption, but suddenly I see that it could have a point Hm, yes, you are first struck by the amazing chutzpah of the idea, and then you are convinced that it can t possibly fly, but somehow it does It s obviously crazy, but also quite unforgettable And they use it to escape from an apparently life threatening predicament which, it turns out, was only ever in their imagination.OK, subconscious, now I see what you mean But don t push your luck too far


  4. says:

    Hmmmhow to rate a book you didn t understand at all that is the question Maybe like this 1 Here the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus is everything that is the case.1.1 It is the case because it is the subject of this review 1.11 This review is determined by facts In this case, all the facts that I came up with while reading the case.1.12 The subject cannot include facts that are not the case because the totality of existent facts determines what is the case, and whatever is not the case.1.121 What is not the case cannot be named because it did not occur and cannot be a state of affairs.1.2 What is the case a fact is the existence of states of affairs.2 An interpretation of facts is a thought.2.1 Only logical thoughts can exist.2.11 What is logical can be thought.2.112 What can be thought is logical.2.2 What can be thought is the totality of states of affairs.2.3 While reading the case many of the states of affairs were caused by interpretations thoughts that were not logical.2.4 Because the thoughts were not logical, the case cannot be said to exist.3 Therefore, this truth function proves that Tractatus Logico Philosophicus does not exist.4 P x p X d N, Q 5 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence.


  5. says:

    Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Logical Philosophical Treatise Treatise on Logic and Philosophy, Ludwig WittgensteinThe Tractatus Logico Philosophicus abbreviated and cited as TLP is the only book length philosophical work by the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein that was published during his lifetime 1921 The project had a broad goal to identify the relationship between language and reality and to define the limits of science It is recognized by philosophers as a significant philosophical work of the twentieth century G E Moore originally suggested the work s Latin title as homage to the Tractatus Theologico Politicus by Baruch Spinoza 2009 1369 94 20 1388 324 9789640012468 1392 1393 305 1394


  6. says:

    Like many young American readers, I made the mistake of reading the bulk of this text in an In N Out, and now it is difficult for me to think about elementary propositions without thinking about someone ordering a cheeseburger, and, subsequently, thinking about the relationship between the sign of cheeseburger and the atomic fact of the cheeseburger it refers to Wittgenstein orders his cheeseburger with the totality of everything that is the case And he eats the whole thing in under 100 pages.


  7. says:

    Get your P s and Q s ready, folks, because we re in for the ride of our lives Or not.Wittgenstein was living proof that androids were around and functioning during WWI That at least this single android had a sense of humor dry enough to turn the Mariana Trench into the Mojave Desert, too.Or was this a joke at all Let s see.Most of the numbered propositions were imminently clear and devoted to a single purpose describing reality.Language is the big limiter, which should never be a big surprise, but he insists that all reality that is, can be explained clearly Unfortunately, Wittgenstein, the big brilliant man that he is, was fundamentally incapable of describing or CLEARLY STATING his philosophy Or using any object in his philosophy for the purposes of further elucidation.The resulting numbered tracts and use of Formal Logic were used to numb the biological minds reading it but there is good news It did help out with the translation problems for future AIs reviewing this work Difficult to read You have no idea Really Or perhaps you do if you use chalkboards But THIS work of philosophy is the target for that old joke What s the difference between a mathematician and a philosopher Mathematicians know how to use an eraser The logical problem of describing only physics in any positive way while never coming down hard on absolute statements like the way we only hypothesize that the sun will come up tomorrow eventually curled around itself in very strange ways, like the problem of including your own description in with the description itself.It keeps adding to the problem of description, mathematically, until the recursion explodes your head or makes you divide by zero Same difference, really It presages, at least in part, Goedel s Incompleteness Theorem Also, P NP As in, is it possible to include the index to your library in with the library itself, or do you need to make a brand new card catalog system every time to include the original index The time it takes to prove a thing is disproportionately large or impossible compared to the FACT OF THE SOLUTION.This goes beyond logical fallacy It s a real thing we still deal with And yet, Wittgenstein throws out the baby with the bathwater at the very end He makes a beautiful house of cards and claps his hands, making us wake up after the long novel with a classic, and it was only a dream Am I kinda pissed First by having been bored to tears and misunderstanding a handful of DENSE and OBLIQUE propositions that refer to undefined and objectless other works, unlike the careful analysis he made at the start Yeah I am And like his reference to covering your right hand with your left while also covering your left with your right, this text attempts to disprove everything firmly It makes me believe, once again, that formal logic, while glorious in one way, is an absolute horseradish in another.I recommend this for anyone in love with highly complicated logical mazes and other computer science majors YOU MUST HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR OR YOU WILL DIE Or kill someone One, or the other.


  8. says:

    I was just going to write, Of what we cannot speak we must remain silent, as my review The book ends with this rather affected proposition, which actually would make a perfect book review for me as well However, it s an abomination to read or pretend to have done so a book of this stature supposedly the most important philosophical book of the 20th century, no less and not write a paragraph or two about it.Wittgenstein wrote this book in the trenches and P.O.W camps of World War I At the beginning of the book he says Perhaps this book will be understood only by someone who has himself already had the thoughts that are expressed in it That was bad news for me right from the beginning I don t think I ve ever had such lofty thoughts not even close.I would have given this book one star and declared it a heap of pompous and pretentious intellectual chicanery, but Wittgenstein is not to be slighted You see, someone like Bertrand Russell, whose genius I recognize, was so impressed by this Wittgenstein dude that he gave up mathematical logic just because Wittgenstein told him so This was after Russell had spent years on writing Principia Mathematica and trying to defend logic and set theory against the sort of paradoxes of which Russell s paradox is the most famous one Russell said that he couldn t quite understand what Wittgenstein was saying, but he felt in his bones that he must be right That s the kind of guy we re talking about here I m therefore left with no choice but humbly admit that this book was way over my head Respect, Mr Wittgenstein The book has seven main propositions, each expanded by other propositions except for the seventh proposition that ends the book I think I understood quite a few of them, but I couldn t tell you what the book as whole is trying to achieve or prove Some proposition sound just so arcane that I didn t even bother to try to understand them Some propositions peaked my interest, like Proposition 3.333 I read it, and then it ended with That disposes of Russell s paradox I was like Say what How did you dispose of Russell s paradox in one paragraph I stared at that proposition long and hard, but I didn t get it Some propositions looked just weird to me, like Proposition 6.1203 where he proposes an intuitive method to recognize an expression as a tautology I leave it to another genius like Kurt G del to say that he wasn t very impressed with Wittgenstein You see, when G del published his Incompleteness Theorem some 10 years after Tractatus both Wittgenstein and Russell tripped over it G del was a Platonist who believed that mathematics describes an abstract reality, not the empirical reality of logical positivists like Russell and Wittgenstein G del proved that there are true but unprovable propositions in mathematics That comes very close to saying that mathematical truths are independent of any human activity Wittgenstein didn t accept G del s results, and the Dark Prince of Mathematics duly told him to be fruitful and multiply, but not in those words Sorry, I just had to mix Woody Allen into all this.


  9. says:

    6.52 Nosotros sentimos que incluso sitodas las posibles cuestiones cient ficaspudieran responderse, el problema denuestra vida no habr a sido m sprofundizado Desde luego que no queda yaninguna pregunta, y precisamente sta esla respuesta.6.521 La soluci n del problema de la vidaest en la desaparici n de este problema No es sta la raz n de que loshombres que han llegado a ver claro elsentido de la vida despu s de muchodudar, no sepan decir en qu consiste estesentido 6.522 Hay, ciertamente, lo inexpresable,lo que se muestra a s mismo esto es lom stico.6.53 El verdadero m todo de la filosof aser a propiamente ste no decir nada,sino aquello que se puede decir es decir,las proposiciones de la ciencia natural algo, pues, que no tiene nada que ver conla filosof a y siempre que alguienquisiera decir algo de car cter metaf sico,demostrarle que no ha dado significado aciertos signos en sus proposiciones Estem todo dejar a descontentos a los dem s pues no tendr an el sentimiento de queest bamos ense ndoles filosof a , peroser a el nico estrictamente correcto.6.54 Mis proposiciones sonesclarecedoras de este modo que quienme comprende acaba por reconocer quecarecen de sentido, siempre que el quecomprenda haya salido a trav s de ellasfuera de ellas Debe, pues, por as decirlo, tirar la escalera despu s de habersubido Debe superar estas proposiciones entonces tiene la justa visi n del mundo.7 De lo que no se puede hablar, mejor escallarse.


  10. says:

    .


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *