Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

[Guille]

All philosophy enthusiast and common readers must have read Ludwig Wittgenstein's most important work, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It is, like it's name shows, a philsophic view about logic: more especifically, about the non-logicity of our languages. I agree with Wittgenstein's thoughts. However, I have decided to develop my short-cut from his very first point to the last one of this book: showing the conection between these points.

These two points are:
1.The world is everything that is the case.
7.Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

I get from 1. to 7. in seven steps. Each step is what follows of the previous one.

1.The world is everything that is the case. Which is equivalent to: The world is the totality of the atomic facts.

2.The facts are the logical reality of the world.

3.Logic is natural and these two are perfectoid*.

4.Languages are not completely logical, thus, languages are not nature-created (actually it's human createdº).

5.Languages are there to express the thoughts and the facts. But with the expresion, these get de-logicalized.

6.Languages should not be used to express facts (either molecular or atomic).

7.If we should not speak, then we should cannot speak. So, wherehereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

*=perfectoid is the word I use to describe the things that appear or try to be perfect, which is actually everything.
º=Although for me, there is no difference between natural and artificial creation itself.

This is all. Maybe they are too spaced points (i.e. with a lot of ideas between them), but the logic used is un-neglectable (I think). If someone proofs my statements wrong or just disagrees or agrees, let me know here.

[Guille]

When we speak, we are not learning......

Although I agree with this statement, I can't stop looking at it's meaning:

We should not be posting here, because we are not learning. (if we consider writting and speaking the same sort of activty-which I do).

Also going to Oxford seems meaningless with this statement.

[Guille]

ok, I understand it.

About your first post,

I also agree that also all logics, are actually not the pure logic. This is something I thought whiles reading Wittgenstein, and it is that: who/what determines that his logic is correct? or Russell's? or any logic? well, nothing does. Logic simply depends on nature. The "pure" logic is nature's logic. I use the word logicoid to define all the logics that aren't completely logical. Most end up defining logic as illogical (including Russell himself) but this is because of the bvery begining, of the wrongness of the logic they use. Those are simply not completely logical, and thus, end up with paradoxes. But they aren't necesarily illogical. Well, a logic is illogical if this illogical word is in reference to the pure form of logic. But a logic is always logical for itself. This I do, is similar to what wittgenstein does with langauges, saying that to talk about a language we should have another langauge, well, to talk about a logic, we should have another logic. All these are my own thoughts.

[Guille]

Although it may seem so, I'm not saying what Wittgenstein thinks. He believes that humans can create a perfectly logical language. I believe logic is relative and never completely logical, but logicoid. It's all based on the conections between nature, reality, and existence/non-existence.

I will continue tomorrow.

ps: I hope to find enough peacefullness in Oxford to have areally big view and thoughts about all these subjects to be more stable and sure of my ideas. To show how they can be correct, develop them, etz...

[Marketa]

first: It isn't true that I do not learn while speaking. I learn actually a lot. While I am speaking I am changing and I am "forced" to connect some facts I knew before - but what do you call learning if not finding the connections between things?
second:Nature is based on paradoxes. Anything that exists is actully a paradox. Because it exists in time: then there are two different moments "between" which the thing exists, this "between" is a paradox, because the two moments cannot exist together (they are different) but the "thing" must both "connect" them to exist;this concern any existing object - including us.

[Guille]

marketa,

first: the connection of ideas has previously been done by your brain ussually. Only when you start saying things and realise that there is a conection between two things whiles speaking, then it works.

second: nature can't be paradoxical. Nature appears sometimes to be paradoxical. But nature is logicoid. Thus, although not perfect, or completely logical, at least nature isn't paradoxical. If it where, how could nature even exist?

[Marketa]

first: so when you learn things? Describe me the process of learning "making the connections" without active speaking - or at least speaking to yourself silently.
second: nature can be paradoxical as well as non-paradoxical... It all depends on what I call POINT OF VIEW.

[Guille]

first: so when you learn things? Describe me the process of learning "making the connections" without active speaking - or at least speaking to yourself silently.
second: nature can be paradoxical as well as non-paradoxical... It all depends on what I call POINT OF VIEW.

hi marketa.

we learn, for example, through experience (which, in this case, I must admit, it is, betwen other things, gained by speaking). "Experience is a hard teacher because he gives the students the exam before of the lesson"-I really like this definition.

I guess what you call point of view I generalize to subjective (in reality, all of them) observation.