Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung MOBI ñ

Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung MOBI ñ Wittgenstein was deathly afraid of uttering nonsense; whereas I, clearly, am not—how else could I stomach writing so many book reviews? This book is a work of high art—beautiful, austere, and sweeping Wittgenstein is selfconsciously attempting to speak the unspeakable—in his opinion, at least—which is why the language is so succinct and severe He has no use for literary niceties, flowing prose, or extended exposition One gets the feeling that, for Wittgenstein, writing philosophy is repugnant, akin to unclogging a toilet, something he would like to get over with as soon as possible Come to think of it, the toilet metaphor is especially apt Wittgenstein honestly thinks that the whole of Western philosophy has been literally nonsense, and wishes to free the pipes of thought from all the years of accumulated filth And the coup de grâce is that, after condemning the philosophical tradition, he condemns his own work The Tractatus is almost meant to be like a purgative—you swallow it just to spit everything back up Wittgenstein has fully mastered the precept that thetime one spends arguing a point, the less likely that point seems His conclusions are so sweeping, his sentences so forceful, that one is tempted to unthinkingly agree with him Nevertheless, after some consideration, I doubt that many people accept his conclusions I don’t In fact, Wittgenstein’s aforementioned fear of saying something nonsensical may be have limited him It’s almost as if he had a superstitious fear of transgressing the bounds of sense—a superstition all theperplexing because he places its object outside the realm of thought But, like most good books of philosophy, the Tractatus is rewarding to read even if one doesn't accept its conclusions So, read it, I say! Spend time on every sentence, and savor every word, and maybe Wittgenstein will unclog the toilet of your mind. Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus = Logical Philosophical Treatise = Treatise on Logic and Philosophy, Ludwig WittgensteinThe Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus (abbreviated and cited as TLP) is the only booklength philosophical work by the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein that was published during his lifetime (1921) The project had a broad goal: to identify the relationship between language and reality and to define the limits of science It is recognized by philosophers as a significant philosophical work of the twentieth century G E Moore originally suggested the work's Latin title as homage to the Tractatus TheologicoPoliticus by Baruch Spinoza.تاریخ نخستین خوانش: سال 2009 میلادیعنوان: رساله منطقی فلسفی؛ نویسنده: لودویگ ویتگنشتاین؛ مترجم: محمود عبادیان؛ تهران، جهاد دانشگاهی (دانشگاه تهران)؛ 1369؛ در 94 ص؛ موضوع: منطق ریاضی زبان فلسفه از نویسندگان اتریشی سده 20 معنوان: رساله منطقی فلسفی (ویراست دو زبانه)؛ نویسنده: لودویگ ویتگنشتاین؛ مترجم: میر شمس الدین ادیب سلطانی؛ تهران، امیرکبیر، 1388، در 324 ص؛ شابک: 9789640012468؛ چاپ دوم 1392؛ عنوان: رساله منطقی فلسفی؛ نویسنده: لودویگ ویتگنشتاین؛ مترجم: سروش دباغ؛ تهران، هرمس، 1393؛ در 305 ص؛ چاپ دوم 1394؛ کتاب «رساله» تنها کتابی است که «ویتگنشتاین» در زمان حیات خویش منتشر کردند؛ در «رساله» نام هیچ منبعی به چشم نمی‌خورد، و کتاب تنها یک پانوشت دارد گویی نویسنده ی «رساله»، که پیامبرگونه اسرار نهان را بر آفتاب افکنده، به این دقیقه باورمند بوده که راه نوینی پیش پای کاروان فلسفه بشری باز کرده است «رساله» آیینه ی تمام‌ نمایی است از جد و جهد نابغه‌ ای که هم متاثر از سنت تحلیلی، و فیلسوفان نسل اولی آن («گوتلوب فرگه»، «برتراند راسل» و «جی.ای مور») است، هم میراث‌دار سنت آلمانی استعلایی (از مفاهیم کلیدی تفکّر کانت) است، و هم دلی در گرو نویسندگان «داستان‌های انجیل»، و «برادران کارامازوف»، و حکمت، و معنویت مندرج در آثار ایشان دارد شاید با نگریستن بر همگی این رساله هاست که «ایان هکینگ»، فیلسوف تحلیلی مشهور معاصر، «رساله» را اوج خلاقیت و نبوغ بشر غربی می‌انگارد، و بر این باور است که تا تمدن غربی برپاست، این اثر استثنایی، خوانده و نقد و بررسی می‌شود ا شربیانی What can I say about Tractatus that hasn't been said a million times before? Crystalline gnomic dense wrong Well, I don't disagree with any of that, but it would be nice to have an image I ask my subconscious if it can come up with anything, and while I'm in the shower it shows me the sequence from Terry Gilliam's 1988 movie The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, where John Neville and Eric Idle build a hot air balloon made entirely from women's lingerie.I am about to smack my subconscious upside the head for its appalling presumption, but suddenly I see that it could have a point Hm, yes, you are first struck by the amazing chutzpah of the idea, and then you are convinced that it can't possibly fly, but somehow it does It's obviously crazy, but also quite unforgettable And they use it to escape from an apparently lifethreatening predicament which, it turns out, was only ever in their imagination.OK, subconscious, now I see what you mean But don't push your luck too far! Hmmmhow to rate a book you didn't understand at allthat is the question Maybe like this: (?)1 Here the Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus 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 casea factis 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 interpretationsthoughtsthat were not logical.2.4 Because the thoughts were not logical, the case cannot be said to exist.3 Therefore, this truthfunction proves that Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus does not exist.4 P'x= ~p'X (d)//N,:Q!5 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence. Get your P's and Q's ready, folks, because we're in for the ride of our lives Or not.Wittgenstein was living proof that androids were around and functioning during WWI That at least this single android had a sense of humor dry enough to turn the Mariana Trench into the Mojave Desert, too.Or was this a joke at all? Let's see.Most of the numbered propositions were imminently clear and devoted to a single purpose: describing reality.Language is the big limiter, which should never be a big surprise, but he insists that all reality that is, can be explained clearly Unfortunately, Wittgenstein, the big brilliant man that he is, was fundamentally incapable of describing or CLEARLY STATING his philosophy Or using any object in his philosophy for the purposes of further elucidation.The resulting numbered tracts and use of Formal Logic were used to numb the biological minds reading it but there is good news! It did help out with the translation problems for future AIs reviewing this work! Difficult to read? You have no idea Really Or perhaps you do if you use chalkboards But THIS work of philosophy is the target for that old joke:What's the difference between a mathematician and a philosopher?Mathematicians know how to use an eraser.The logical problem of describing only physics in any positive way while never coming down hard on absolute statements like the way we only hypothesize that the sun will come up tomorrow eventually curled around itself in very strange ways, like the problem of including your own description in with the description itself.It keeps adding to the problem of description, mathematically, until the recursion explodes your head or makes you divide by zero (Same difference, really.)It presages, at least in part, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem Also, P=NP As in, is it possible to include the index to your library in with the library itself, or do you need to make a brand new card catalog system every time to include the original index? The time it takes to prove a thing is disproportionately large (or impossible) compared to the FACT OF THE SOLUTION.This goes beyond logical fallacy It's a real thing we still deal with And yet, Wittgenstein throws out the baby with the bathwater at the very end He makes a beautiful house of cards and claps his hands, making us wake up after the long novel with a classic, and it was only a dream.Am I kinda pissed? First by having been bored to tears and misunderstanding a handful of DENSE and OBLIQUE propositions that refer to undefined and objectless other works, unlike the careful analysis he made at the start? Yeah I am And like his reference to covering your right hand with your left while also covering your left with your right, this text attempts to disprove everything firmly It makes me believe, once again, that formal logic, while glorious in one way, is an absolute horseradish in another.I recommend this for anyone in love with highly complicated logical mazes and other computer science majors YOU MUST HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR OR YOU WILL DIE Or kill someone One, or the other. Like many young American readers, I made the mistake of reading the bulk of this text in an InNOut, and now it is difficult for me to think about elementary propositions without thinking about someone ordering a cheeseburger, and, subsequently, thinking about the relationship between the sign of cheeseburger and the atomic fact of the cheeseburger it refers to Wittgenstein orders his cheeseburger with the totality of everything that is the case And he eats the whole thing in under 100 pages. کتاب «رساله» تنها کتابی است که ویتگنشتاین در زمان حیاتش منتشر کرد؛ در «رساله» نام هیچ منبعی به چشم نمی‌خورد و کتاب تنها یک پانوشت دارد گویی نویسنده «رساله»، که پیامبرگونه اسرار نهان را بر آفتاب افکنده، به این دقیقه متفطن بوده که راه نوینی پیش پای کاروان فلسفه بشری باز کرده است «رساله» آیینه تمام‌نمایی است از جد و جهد نابغه‌ای که هم متاثر از سنت تحلیلی و فیلسوفان نسل اولی آن فرگه، راسل و مور است، هم میراث‌دار سنت آلمانی استعلایی است و هم دلی در گرو نویسندگان «داستان‌های انجیل» و «برادران کارامازوف» و حکمت و معنویت مندرج در آثار ایشان دارد شاید با ملحوظ کردن جمیع این مؤلفه‌هاست که ایان هکینگ، فیلسوف تحلیلی مشهور معاصر، «رساله» را اوج خلاقیت و نبوغ بشر غربی می‌انگارد و بر این باور است که تا تمدن غربی برپاست این اثر استثنایی، خوانده و نقد و بررسی می‌شود I was just going to write, “Of what we cannot speak we must remain silent,” as my review The book ends with this rather affected proposition, which actually would make a perfect book review for me as well However, it’s an abomination to read (or pretend to have done so) a book of this stature (supposedly the most important philosophical book of the 20th century, no less) and not write a paragraph or two about it.Wittgenstein wrote this book in the trenches and P.O.W camps of World War I At the beginning of the book he says: “Perhaps this book will be understood only by someone who has himself already had the thoughts that are expressed in it.” That was bad news for me right from the beginning I don’t think I’ve ever had such lofty thoughts – not even close.I would have given this book one star and declared it a heap of pompous and pretentious intellectual chicanery, but Wittgenstein is not to be slighted You see, someone like Bertrand Russell, whose genius I recognize, was so impressed by this Wittgenstein dude that he gave up mathematical logic just because Wittgenstein told him so This was after Russell had spent years on writing Principia Mathematica and trying to defend logic and set theory against the sort of paradoxes of which Russell’s paradox is the most famous one Russell said that he couldn't quite understand what Wittgenstein was saying, but he felt in his bones that he must be right That’s the kind of guy we’re talking about here I’m therefore left with no choice but humbly admit that this book was way over my head Respect, Mr Wittgenstein! The book has seven main propositions, each expanded by other propositions (except for the seventh proposition that ends the book) I think I understood quite a few of them, but I couldn’t tell you what the book as whole is trying to achieve or prove Some proposition sound just so arcane that I didn’t even bother to try to understand them Some propositions peaked my interest, like Proposition 3.333 I read it, and then it ended with: “That disposes of Russell’s paradox.” I was like: Say what? How did you dispose of Russell’s paradox in one paragraph? I stared at that proposition long and hard, but I didn’t get it Some propositions looked just weird to me, like Proposition 6.1203 where he proposes an “intuitive method” to recognize an expression as a tautology I leave it to another genius like Kurt Gödel to say that he wasn’t very impressed with Wittgenstein You see, when Gödel published his Incompleteness Theorem (some 10 years after Tractatus) both Wittgenstein and Russell tripped over it Gödel was a Platonist who believed that mathematics describes an abstract reality, not the empirical reality of logical positivists like Russell and Wittgenstein Gödel proved that there are true but unprovable propositions in mathematics That comes very close to saying that mathematical truths are independent of any human activity Wittgenstein didn’t accept Gödel’s results, and the Dark Prince of Mathematics duly told him to “be fruitful and multiply, but not in those words.” (Sorry, I just had to mix Woody Allen into all this.) The ingenious work which, had it been true, would have provided a firm foundation for Positivism and provided justification for Philosophy's existence It also would have pretty much been the last word on the nature of and philosophical limits of language Instead Wittgenstein repudiated this view and put a nail in the coffin with P.I.Elegant, minimal, logically crystalline And mostly wrong. What the hell am I supposed to say about this?The parts I understood were hugely inspirational to my own thoughts, if I did indeed understand those parts, which I suspect I did not.What a shame that someone so clever who had decided that this book was the beall and endall to problems in philosophy could only communicate them in a form that often eludes human comprehension.It's like the saying that if the human brain were simple enough for us to understand it then we would be too stupid to do so, that the brain was not something we were ever going to understand.Perhaps if someone were indeed smart enough to resolve all problems in philosophy then they could only communicate it in an incomprehensible language.Then they would decide later that they were wrong anyway.WTF.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *