Adam Floridia's Reviews > Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1024945
's review
Sep 02, 11

Read from August 29 to September 02, 2011

Hmmm...how 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."
13 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-2 of 2) (2 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Gregsamsa (last edited Nov 10, 2013 07:22PM) (new)

Gregsamsa I absolutely love your condition: "1.1 It is the case because it is the subject of this review." On one hand it is unassailable, but if you get all Wittgensteiny you could shred it like a cat on cotton. Past that, I gotta say I love your 1.1ness mockery. You're funny, and that is better than understanding Witt.

This is not a view widely considered supportable, but mathematically I hear that one Bertrand Russell and half a Jacques Derrida equals like FOUR Wittgensteins, so do the math and read around otherwise.


Adam Floridia Gregsamsa wrote: "I absolutely love your condition: "1.1 It is the case because it is the subject of this review." On one hand it is unassailable, but if you get all Wittgensteiny you could shred it like a cat on ..."

Thanks, Gregsamsa. I haven't really read any theory since grad school, so I'm quite rusty. I can follow that simple math, though, and should brush up.


back to top