Thread: Tractatus Magnus Opus - Language is not Transcendental

Tractatus - I really did not know what to title this thread.

I will do my best to keep this interesting.

This thread is inspired by my conversation with thegnome45. However, I will make it in it's own thread as it has warranted new content for explanation and consideration.

There is no easy way to get into this besides bluntly stating the theories. I will be using Wittgensteins "Tractatus" as my primary source.

Fundamental 7 propositions: (and he would hate me for using the word proposition)
1 - The world is everything that is the case
2 - What is the case - a fact - is the existence of states of affairs.
3 - A logical picture of facts is a thought.
4 - A thought is a proposition with a sense
5 - A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.
6 - The general form of truth is (logical symbols that the keyboard cannot type). This is the general form of proposition.
7 - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Consider:
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, no of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.

2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).
2.1 We picture facts to ourselves
2.12 A picture is a model of reality

4.1 Propositions represent the existence and non-existence of states of affairs.

5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.


^ This was drawn by Wittgenstein.

Most modern people have seen this image before. It has also been frequently used to describe Gestalt psychology etc. However, when you project a duck or rabbit, you are illustrating the fundamental problem with language and our limitations of knowledge.

All that we use to interpret knowledge is interpretations of the environment, even empiricism falls to this. To fully understand this, consider that many people hold language as a transcendental medium beyond their consciousness. Language is not foreign, transcendental, or divine. Language is a part of the world. Language is limited in its representation. Language cannot represent the intangible and facts but is a human method used to cognitively construct and understand the facts that encapsulate the world.
Derivative proposition - language is what allows for propositional thinking that can represent pictures of the world and facts. Trying to 'say' or describe reality through language, as we are inclined to do, reduces to nonsense.

Clearly, the book addresses the central problems of philosophy which deal with the world, thought and language, and presents a "solution" of these problems which is grounded in logica nd in the nature of representation. The world is represented by thought, which is a proposition with sense, since they all - world, thought, and proposition - share the same logical form. Hence, the thoguht and the proposition can be pictures of facts.

To what we were referring to;
O'nus: I am hungry.
thegnome45: I am hungry.

Both people are subject to making a linguistic construct of a fact. However, both are using the same factual expression but experiencing different facts.

To better illustrate:
- I is typically best understood as a relative term.
- Any person can use the word I.
- What you are referring to as "I" cannot be perceived, described, or explained.
You are now likely inclined to note further facts of the world to explain what an "I" is.

Biology, chemicals, emotions, feelings, etc. are all linguistic fundamentals to illustrate and represent the "I". Since I is a fact, contingently proven within phenomenological experiences only, the illustrations used to describe "I" are render the relative representation of "I" to nonsense. Only you, the phenomological "I" can understand and properly represent to yourself the true "I".

Ludwig Wittgenstien; Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

I hope this has been enlightening.
~