Proposition 1: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Proposition 1 » Proposition 1

Proposition 1
and whatever else fits on the first page of the Tractatus

Proposition 1

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/25/09 - 09:35 PM: Subject: Proposition 1	#1
So the thing is, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus has been interpreted a million different ways before breakfast. The other thing is, truth is no more subjective than this sentence is false. Wittgenstein is simply a complex guy. Simply Complex. We all know how it starts... 1. The world is everything that is the case. The terms world and case are rather abstract. If one word could sum up the whole work, 'abstract' would do quite nicely. So, be that W defines the world immediately, this is no stopping point. We also get: 2.024 Substance is what exists independently of what is the case. How peculiar. We now have the world and substance as two separate, non negotiable entities. Or do we? He describes substance by stating "It is form and content" as well as saying "Space, time and color (colouredness) are forms of objects". Herein lies a big piece of the puzzle. The temporal, spatial, material are forms and within these forms one can find their content. And that would reveal that what is the case is not the final say. And surely, this substance is not something that can be reduced. Whereas that covers what is the case and what is not, what of the so-called world? Well, coupled with what was just said, W also insists: 5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. ... 5.641 There is therefore really a sense in which in philosophy we can talk of the non-psychological I. The I occurs in philosophy through the fact that "the world is my world." The philosophical I is not the man, not the human body or the human soul of which psychology treats, but the metaphysical subject, the limit-- not a part of the world. Oh, now that is quite profound; and that last proposition is directly prior Proposition 6, the trine relationship. But now we have, not only the world as everything that is the case, but also the person or I that is this limit- but do note that this limit is not the limit of solipsism. This particular I is more akin the inverse of the solipsistic I. It reaches out towards the world rather than shy away from it. Is this why the solipsistic I collapses on itself? But let us take another gander. A couple lines after proposition numero uno, we have: 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. Well now, Mr. Wittgenstein, what have we got ourselves into? A clarification in 2.0121 states that "Logic treats of every possibility, and all possibilities are its facts." Whereas this is an unusually loose usage of logic, it is important to see that not only does W crank up logic to dealing with possibility, but that with the aforementioned metaphysical claims (substance!), logic is, thus, not all that is possible. So we get (in 2.182) "Every picture is also a logical picture. ( on the other hand, for example, not every picture is spatial.)" To picture is to picture logically? Well, the poet comes out of the closet. And this codifies it: "3.03 We cannot think anything unlogical, for otherwise we should have to think unlogically." Edit: Logic reaches up into something- and that is substance, and it is nonsense, but it is there. And, if one does not mind my meanderings, shortly therafter 3.032 clarifies rightly: To present in language anything which "contradicts logic" is as impossible as in geometry to present by its coordinates a figure which contradicts the laws of space; or to give coordinates of a point which does not exist. And THAT is the logic of our language, ladies and gentlemen. 4.002 is a supple compliment. Ya see, beneath all this abstract terminology, Wittgenstein is defending colloquial language. For what is expressible is to be found in language, and whoever thinks there is something beyond language that can be expressed need only express it to prove himself wrong. And it is important to see W's limit to language as dynamic and changing, and to see that for every human being on the planet it is surely a little different. But now the cat is out of the bag: there is more individuality in knowing the limits to your world than presuming there are no limits. One can only surpass limitation by recognizing it. And it is always there. 1.2 The world divides into facts. Ah, but what of this? Well... 4.001 The totality of propositions is the language. And we already assessed that the language is the world, so does this mean that propositions are facts? Well, in 3.14 we get "The propositional sign is a fact" but what of it? We know that language is world, and in 4.01 we get "The proposition is a picture of reality". And we all know that "The thought is the significant proposition". Words, therefore, picture reality in a certain sense contained by a language, and it is only within the context of a language that a word has a sense. But this sense is acquired through the senses of the word or music or other ways in which we express. And with that, we can see the logical scaffolding that connects the mind to the world, such that we have, roughly speaking, a mirror. it might be a foggy mirror, but still a mirror. This fogginess can surely be further clarified. The bridging, however, in this particular post, is not quite complete- though I am sure the essential parts are here. Well, it's the Tractatus... Questions? Comments? Or are you waiting for my coverage of proposition 2? Edited by ManiacJack on 08/26/09 - 11:02 AM
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 08/26/09 - 10:22 AM:	#2
Why assume a cut off sentence means anything? Just because you claim the personification that W is of some 'higher being' does not neccessarily mean that what he sees is reality. That is the case.(?) Well... maybe. Very interesting statements though. I just don't see why we should hold W in awe when we don't hold E in awe. (Euclidian) My only question on his first statement is that I can't say definitatively what he means by the word that. It's sort of like writing natural pauses, is there supposed to be a semi-colon after everything; for instance. Or is everything that is the case therefore the world? Or do we write the semi-colon prior to the word everything? I personally agree with W. -we can only observe that which interacts with the observational tool. We don't know with certainty that mars exists. Only that photons that hit our observational tool creates this neat-o circle on our lens. However, based on your use of terminology.... Very well done piece of work ManiacJack. I browsed through it quickly and found no glaring 'mistakes' in thinking. I'll have to re-read to see if your answer holds true though.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 08/26/09 - 10:54 AM:	#3
To present in language anything which "contradicts logic" is as impossible as in geometry to present by its coordinates a figure which contradicts the laws of space; or to give coordinates of a point which does not exist. The flaw to the argument. We have to go to Geothe and his mathematical infinities systems. A while ago I was hoping people would lead me to the same conclusion I came to. Namely that the line segments of Triangles that stop at the same point do not actually join at said point. If you have a triangle of infinite length - then at the point where two triangle line segments end up are still parallel to each other -At least according to Euclidian's method. So, if you have two line segments of a triangle so that you have line AB and line BC - the point at which AB connects to BC is what we call the corner of the triangle. Traditionally we claim that as a solid, the Line AB passes through Line BC at point B. Yet they cannot if they are parallel. Since all triangles must hold true to the rules that make a triangle a triangle - then all triangles do not intersect at the points where two line segments approaches. And you can't claim that a triangle with infinite sides ins't a triangle because it is a circular argument. Besides that one flaw... very good.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

Posted 09/09/09 - 09:47 AM:	#4
Since all triangles must hold true to the rules that make a triangle a triangle - then all triangles do not intersect at the points where two line segments approaches. But the triangle, like the word, finds its significance through use. One no more needs a definition of a word than a definition of a triangle. The contradiction does not lie in the triangle, it lies in our assuming definitions-- which can never prove to be that which we are trying to define. I agree in that we cannot call an infinite triangle a 'not-triangle', but we can show how an infinite triangle does not hold to the (Euclidean) assumptions-- is that not the "Critique of Language"?
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

et cetera
thinks too much at work

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2008

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 319

Posted 09/09/09 - 11:07 PM:	#5
He describes substance by stating "It is form and content" as well as saying "Space, time and color (colouredness) are forms of objects". Herein lies a big piece of the puzzle. The temporal, spatial, material are forms and within these forms one can find their content. And that would reveal that what is the case is not the final say. And surely, this substance is not something that can be reduced. Substance has structure. Propositions attempt to share this structure. If a proposition is successful in this endeavor then we are lead to the conclusion that these facts are reducible in terms of atomic facts. I think Wittgenstein was attempting to show the necessity of the ontological world by connecting the structures of language with that of the actual world. I mean if a truthful proposition is not a picture of that which is actually the case then what is it a picture of? Carnap wrote some interesting stuff on this issue. And I do apologize, I know I am being esoteric but hopefully you see where I am coming from. Regardless, I might be confused. The Tractatus, itself, is very confusing after all. Edited by et cetera on 09/09/09 - 11:13 PM
Any necessary truth, whether a priori or a posteriori, could not have turned out otherwise. -- Saul Kripke Meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the object of reference and wedded to the word. -- Quine A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it - Kripke

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/11/09 - 07:03 AM:	#6
Yes and no ManiacJack. The only way in which the triangle example to hold any answer beyond literal 'nonsense' is to have triangle defined prior to actually looking at the question. You also need to know which assumptions hold valid for which range of membrane. Otherwise Euclidean assumptions should still hold true. (ie. Is there a clause that states triangles must have limited length?) I might look at W. a bit differently in that propositions must hold true to both existence and language laws.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.