This is the 2nd part of the Tractus disscussion group. The Mother thread is here:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28879.aspx
"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
In section 2 Wit discusses what a fact is. Section 2 is FACTS
2.01 - 2.063 shows what he eans when he says atomic facts:
This section could be called: Atomic Facts
I don't know if I have much to say on this thread. I think it explains itself well. If someone wants me to format it in a more east to read / comprehend "outline" model I will
I find that it's easier to read from the bottom up, starting with 2.063 and working up to 2.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I have to say I admire the structure of the Tractatus - it takes a lot of guts and hard work to make the sturcture of your argument clearly visible and unambiguous. Although I don't agree with a lot of what Wittgenstein says in the Tractatus, I think it is a model for certain kinds of philosophical argument.
Clayton -
Clayton: I have to say I admire the structure of the Tractatus - it takes a lot of guts and hard work to make the sturcture of your argument clearly visible and unambiguous. Although I don't agree with a lot of what Wittgenstein says in the Tractatus, I think it is a model for certain kinds of philosophical argument. Clayton -
Anyone feel like doing something similar for AE?
Following up on what I wrote here, the content of section 2 through 2.063 is going to be deep stuff.
1. He talks a lot about "objects". Now, since "facts" do not exist in our Universe, but in "logical space", as he wrote earlier [see above link], and he claims that objects are parts of facts [=2.01 An atomic fact is a combination of objects (entities, things)], then of course the apple I am about to take a bite out of is not the kind of object he is talking about. That apple exists in the physical universe, not in "logical space". Also, that apple does have an existence independent of any facts about it, it would seem to me. An apple is an apple. But the objects he is going to talk about live in "logical space", not in the physical Universe, and he is going to show that they are pretty strange creatures.
2. Let's talk a little about this "logical space". He says some odd things about it. For one thing, he used two different phrases, "logical space" and "the world". A fellow on Witt's level would not use two phrase for the same thing unless he made it quite clear that they are indeed the same thing. So that we must conclude that the world [=the set of all true facts] is a proper subset of logical space. There are more things hanging around logical space than just facts and just "the world". What else is there remains to be seen.
First of all, not just truths hang around in logical space. Falsities do also. Socrates being American is a falsity, and it also is sitting in some pub in logical space, drinking a beer. He says this quite clearly in 2.06:
Just to be absolutely clear, "existence" [as used by Witt] for a fact means the idea it conveys is true in our real physical universe. But non existent facts [=facts that convey ideas that are false in the real world, such as Socrates being American], are "facts" as well; they are negative facts. They are fair game for logic to study, and so they exist in logical space [to the extent anything exists there], although they would not be said to "exist" in the very special and technical sense of "exist' [=true in our physical world] that Witt gave to that word.
So I'm beginning to think that the inhabitants of this twilight zone he calls logical space are the concepts and ideas that logical thinking thinks about.
[Again, it doesn't really matter whether there really "is" a logical space out there somewhere, or if it's all in our heads. Just as it doesn't really matter to a mathematician whether there really is such a thing as a set, or a number, so too everything Witt says about logical space remains valid whether that space is "real" in any sense or not.]
More on logical space later.
Smiling Dave, I just want to say your posts on this rock.
Keep it up!
Thanks, gotlucky.
More on these weird "objects".
You cannot have a husband without a mariage and a wife. A husband cannot exist on his own, except as being part of a marriage. Witt now claims that, similarly, "objects" in logical space cannot exist on their own, except as being part of a fact.
The human Socrates that exists in the physical Universe can exist independent of anything else. But the object Socrates that exists in logical space is always a part of a "fact". Indeed, it is a part of many facts, some true and some false. He makes the odd claim that the Socrates in logical space is an octopus, attached by tentacles to a myriad of "facts".
One may wonder how he knows this. Has he visited logical space, in some acid trip or otherwise? Nope, he knows it by reason of his mighty brain, and explains it to us as well:
2.012 In logic nothing is accidental: if a thing can occur in an atomic fact the possibility of that atomic fact must already be prejudged in the thing.
Wait. what?
Things are not clear to me at the moment. First, what does the above quote even mean? Second, why is it important that Socrates of logical space has tentacles?