Thisthread has been fored because of nonantianarchist's great idea of discussion groups here:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28878.aspx
Anyway I figured we would go through Tractus point by point - or at least small chunks of relevant section by relevant section.
my thoughts - all advice is more than welcome on how to do something like this
There should be some time limit between new postings of sections to let discussions take place (ex: every two days)
Links and resources should also be provided, when they are applicable
Can anyone think of anything else before I start - how to orginize or discuss this in a forum setting? I am not here to lecture or anything, as I don't consider myself an expert on Witt
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I can come up with a breif preliminary outline and some brief preliminary remarks and links in a day before the books points are presented in full - i just need some time to think about it
It seems that LW sets the book up in such a way as to refer back to seven main points. Should we set it up so that we read a point every two days and discuss? Of course, not everyone will necessarily hold back for two days before posting (questions or concerns regarding specific points may arise in the interim), but that shouldn't be a problem should it? For anyone who would like to participate there are free versions of Wittgenstein's Tractatus here (MOBI; I'm reading this one) and here (PDF; with an introduction by Bertrand Russell).
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
A nicely-arranged "expanding" version of the Tractatus.
hould we set it up so that we read a point every two days and discuss
Certain parts have more weight and stress, and the scheme itself is a bit off putting
to go through 1-7 in however many days may not be helpful
it would probably be something like:
1(all of it)
2 - 2.1
2.1 - 2.2
etc
Wow. That's very nice.
(An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
This is the general form of proposition.
So with your idea, we read The world is everything that is the case. for when?
Ah, it's 2.1 where he starts to lose me:
2.1 We make to ourselves pictures of facts.
I thought I knew what he meant by "facts" until I hit this, then it seems that what I was thinking he meant by facts he is describing as "pictures" yet I don't see any justification for this extra level of complexity either prior to 2.1 or within it.
Clayton -
OK let's just start this and hope for the best hopefully some "spontanious order" will come out of it
The main outline:
1. The World is all That is the case
2.What is the case - a fact - is the existence of the states of affairs
3. A logical picture of facts is a thought
4. A thought is a proposition with a sense
5. A proposition is a truth function
6.The general form of a truth function is [p, ξ, N(ξ)] This is the general form of a proposition
7.Wherefore one can not speak one must be silent
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
-
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.
1.1 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.
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.
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?
Right,
it's an outline. Think
II. W
A.X
1. Y
a. z
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.
This looks very interesting! I'm in! When we all finish Tractatus, would it make sense to read Philosophical Investigations afterwards?
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.
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
'1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
I think I can be in on this as well.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
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
'1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same.' what does this mean?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
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