The world is all that is the case

>The world is all that is the case.

What does it mean?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=L6gocvGMWDs
roangelo.net/logwitt/logwit32.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Keep reading

It means that, for your utterances to be considered as true or false, and not nonsense, they have to be about the world. He is denying the supernatural.

>He is denying the supernatural
Dohohoho.

So he's like everyone else smart from Machiavelli to Kant. Why did he have to write like such a fucking mysterious mystic then?

He's not denying the supernatural. Never did.

Watch this for an intro.

youtube.com/watch?v=L6gocvGMWDs

>Pseuding/reading shitty translations without studying contexts whatsoever/being a complete fucking retard this hard

Die a painful death mate

Jesus fucking christ kill yourself

A lot people had problems with his apparent mysticism. It was his fault really, not wanting to spell it out, believing it does not need further elaboration and that his prose was clear as day. Ramsey, Witty's his contemporary, reviewed the Tractatus and if I remember correctly, even ridiculed it on some of its points. It's a pain in the ass to decipher it especially since there are so several interpretative versions.

He's implicitly doing so.

He talked shit behind Anscombe's back, saying that he could never believe what she believes (she was a Catholic). He didn't believe in ethical facts nor mathematical objects. That's denying the supernatural to the T.

Denying the supernatural and denying the ability to comprehend/express anything about it comes down to the same.

Different guy and I'm not interested in debating this but this site definitely says otherwise. for what it's worth. ..

roangelo.net/logwitt/logwit32.html

Seriously though it is hard as fuck to read. People like Kant and Hegel are legit more accessible.

The fact that everybody has latched onto this phrase for the wrong reasons, Pynchon included, is an endless source of sad laughs for me

Oooooh we got a big defender of mysticism and positivism...all at once! Look at that! And historicism to boot!

Great authors write everything they need to write. No context necessary unless you're reading a mediocre writer.

Tractatus was wrong though and after Quine wrote "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism", logical positivism was destroyed and could never recover.

But Quine is such a BORE how does anyone get through the two dogmas? I'm not even sure I got through the first dogma.

>"The Two Dogmas of Empiricism"
Dated. Nobody takes it seriously anymore.

He is defining what "the world" is. He goes on in the next proposition to define "the case".

This is a decent overview I think.

Fucking W himself said Tractatus was shit later on.
The fuck are you even saying? Everyone is back on the LP train again?

>Dated. Nobody takes it seriously anymore.

Mhm.

>tfw your uni completely bends over to analytical philosophy
Is there even a point in studying phil now?

Take that back, right now.

It is objectively a waste of time. Nowadays reading Quine is like reading Schlegel or some other German philosopher you never heard of.

>reading one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century is like reading Schlegel

Sure it might be a waste of time now because people have continued to expound upon it, but it doesn't change the fact that it was necessary when it was written in order to make logical positivists realize that they hadn't solved philosophy.

>Fucking W himself said Tractatus was shit later on.
I think he always thought it was shit. He told Russell he'd already tried to do something like the Principia and knew that kind of thinking leads to a dead end. This seems to have been polished into the Tractatus. Everything it says is trash but it shows other things that are very interesting philosophically.

Pre-Hegelian Logic, Proof by Appeals to Intuition and Majority, Naturalistic interpretation of Truth.

Also obscurity and ambiguity all over the place though, analytics eschew explanation and exegesis because they all assume we all equally know what words like "truth" or "world" mean, so they proceed to be too lazy to talk about them.

More like Posterior Analytics amirite

Most universities do m8, because most universities cater to STEM.

Just find the oddball out of the philosophy department that everyone considers a goofball for reading Heidegger and get to know him(like I did).

>obscurity and ambiguity all over the place though

But that is exactly what plagues the Continentals and what Analytics react against/

I guess you haven't gotten past the whole "Wittgenstein was a positivist" meme, eh? Well in fact, he was actually quite the mystic, and the most important issues to him with ethical and theological in nature. To get an idea, just read the last few pages of the Tractatus or his Notebooks from 1914-1916. He was basically obsessed with Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and St. Augustine.

No I'm perfectly aware that that's what they tell themselves. I'm saying that analytics never do exegesis, they use significantly more meaningless jargon, and at the end of reading a bit of analytic philosophy you're always left wondering: "Clearly valid argument, but what the fuck is it arguing for? How the fuck would we make that valid shit into sound shit?"

Which is why I transferred to Germany, where at least people slow down, explain what they mean, prefer to avoid distraction jargon words, and ask major questions in a number of different ways so everybody's on the same page when we move forward.

For someone who has had zero formal training or experience with analytical philosophy, it's also obscure and ambiguous, yet Continental philosophers are the only ones who are thoroughly criticized for it.

I mean, just try to read the Tractatus and tell me he isn't being deliberately obscurantist on several occasions.

Wittgenstein was an oddball.

no

>there is no god
>we cant say anything about god

denying the supernatural is actually contradictory to the statement wittgensteins making

>Wittgenstein was an oddball.

Sure, but my point is that extremely advanced logic is incomprehensible for someone who doesn't have any experience in it, and the same applies to reading Heidegger without learning to read him properly.

Everything is obscure and ambiguous to someone.

Not really. It's just closet Christians like you like to think of him as a Christian even though he explicitly denied believing in Christian metaphysics and theology. W never really finished reading Kierkegaard. St. Augustine is quoted just once in PI.

You clearly haven't read anything resembling contemporary analytic philosophy. Nowadays it's indistinguishable from arguing about formal systems.

Of course he is. That's why W is interesting and Russel and people like him are not.

Arguing about formal systems is what I'm fucking talking about
>facepalm.jpg

>Confuse me! Confuse me! Make me "think"!!!!!!
>"Hasd89Ahdjks???" So profound!!!!!!!!
>It is groundbreaking how interesting he is!!!!!!!

Yes.

And Tolstoy tho that bit of Tolstoy's ouevre has no English translations iirc