What is a good secondary source to help me understand the Tractatus?

>a bad first hand reading is worth more...
Well, in my opinion this shows how little you want to actually engage with it. If you want to approach philosophy as a dilettante then that's fine but I don't think you should be discouraging others from making use of resources made available by far more capable minds than ourselves.

I guess your approach is more evident by the fact that you think you can discount reading the Tractatus and just reading the Investigations. Whether one thinks there's a continuity to Witt's thought, or a decisive break, it can't be denied that the Investigations were written with the context of the Tractatus in mind. If you want to understand the Investigations then you must have some grasp of Witt was doing in the Tractatus. Your 'bad first hand reading' will never appreciate that and is worth practically nothing 'to the world'.

It's another but here ya go, syllabus for a seminar on the Tractatus

my.mixtape.moe/gvqgrt.pdf

>by far more capable minds than ourselves.

Imagine actually believing this

Attached: 1480840384175.jpg (1440x1080, 182K)

Eli Friedlander, Cora Diamond and Hide Ishiguro are the best commentators. I honestly think Anscombe misunderstood the Tractatus. I've not read Kenny's work, but I've read the abridged Tractatus in the Wittgenstein Reader and his focus seems a little off - you would have a fair understanding of the "picture theory," but the final propositions would appear a surprise rather than a culmination if you only read Kenny's abridgment.

Wittgenstein straight swaggin in this pic.

>A woman, a jap, and a jew are the best commentators.
Sure thing, pal.

>a jew

You realize who we're talking about here?

>I honestly think (You) Anscombe misunderstood the Tractatu
You may be right, but it's often recommended as foundational in Tractatus interpretation. I, at least, think it's right as far as the explication of the logical matters.

>the final propositions would appear a surprise rather than a culmination if you only read Kenny's abridgment
As far as my understanding of the Tractatus goes, I think the latter propositions should be at least somewhat of a surprise rather than a culmination. This is only because I think, biographically, that reading makes sense. The final book is a synthesis of the strictly logical work he'd be doing since ~1911 with the profound religious conversion in the latter part of the decade. Obviously how much of either is the primary focus of the book is massively up for debate. My study of it has been focussed on the early props though.

But anyway, regarding Kenny. Again he's an oft recommended introduction. There's lots of interpretative debates that have evolved since his book, but it's concise enough and provides a good grounding before you start worrying about resolute readings and such.

here you go

Attached: 91rYmy3nxcL.jpg (1920x2560, 633K)

Ignore this idiot. He shows up in every Wittgenstein thread contributing only variations of:
>laughing_girls.jpg
>reading the tractatus
>not PI

If you insecurely believe that academic commentary is a mousetrap and that safety lies in not entering, then perhaps you don't have a strong foundation in the text. Schopenhauer is right that you should spend more time with the masters than their commentators, but that doesn't mean disregarding commentary altogether.

You should just read the Tractatus once or twice on your own, then start reading critical commentary. You'll find yourself agreeing with some and disagreeing with others and in the process you'll clarify what precisely you think the Tractatus means. As & make clear, there are many, often mutually exclusive, interpretations.

tl;dr - don't trust a commentator to tell you what something means, but do use commentary to clarify what you think it means.

>Schopenhauer is right
Stopped reading there.

My problem is less with commentators and more with "It has a Cambridge stamp so it must be true" attitude
I'd highly recommend Richard Rorty's reading of Witty myself

Iago said put money in thy purse, so I refuse to put money in my purse.

Who the fuck is Lago?

You're a huge retard.

>implied Schopenhauer is wrong about anything

disregarded opinion right fucking there

Large and in charge like the ladies like it.

He was wrong about most things. Try really hard to grow up.

No they don't.

he was actually right about most things. try hard to grow up.

see how easy that is?

>t. virgin

Yes, it's easy for mediocre minds to cloak themselves in the opinions of genuine iconoclasts.

you must have forgotten your cloak because your mediocrity is showing

>agreeing with someone who is right makes someone's mind "mediocre"

Weak.

>t. autist

earth is mine to inherit then

>call someone "mediocre" and "autist" and you win

wow really made me thing

>"It's 0715," Ender said, "and that means you have fifteen minutes for breakfast before I see you all in the battleroom for the morning practice." He could hear them silently saying, Come on, we won, let us celebrate. All right, Ender answered, you may. "And you have your commander's permission to throw food at each other during breakfast."

>Thinking I'm trying to "win"
Projecting your pathologies onto me.

Absolute bookino

not my pathologies. just yours, friend.