I am currently reading Wittgenstein’s Tractus. I think I am in love with his work. Has anyone else read his book? And what do you think of his work?
What I believe to be the most powerful philosophical thought, ever!
“What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence.” - Wittgenstein
his thought changes a fair bit after the Tractus… when your done with that try his “The Blue and Brown Books”… and the “Philosophical Investigations”.
he starts to talk a little about that which we cannot speak about… but I’m not particularily familiar with the Tractus myself… only with the latter stuff… (and I’m no Witt scholar either way lol…)
yes the vienna circle (the logical positivists) loved the book as well…
but wittgenstein changes his opinion completely…
he called his tractatus nonsense…
just remember, the meaning of a word is its use…
-Imp
Wittgenstein rejected his Tractus fairly quickly when it came to it.
Don’t get too attached. 
I’m not a huge fan of Wittgenstein to be honest. I have read Tractus but it didn’t really appeal. Perhaps I should give his other ones a try before I completely reject him…
with all do respect to the above replies, if you like the silence posts then you might actually appreciate his later writtings, it all depends on how you take his “silence” statement. The misinterpretation of the statement was the problem of the logical-positivists… because it was mystical rather than logical… he speaks of rammming one’s head on the boundies of language…
if you like Wittgenstien then i recommend Habbermas’ “Communication and the Evolution of Society”…
I am Wittgenstein. In ability and temperament, as I was then, so I am now.
JJ
Wittgenstein is one of the most clear and self-evident philosopher’s I’ve ever read. I loved his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. My favorite quote was one that he gave to define philosophy:
I know this quote really was not the man theme of the book, but I liked it all the same.
i remember reading Bertrand Russell for the first time about 5 years ago and in his introduction to History of Western Philosophy’ he gives a captivating definition of philosophy.
You might enjoy that too.
I agree with Gavtmcc that Bertrand Russell, ‘History of Western Philosophy’ is a great read. That’s where my sorry path on philosophy started. I have to agree with the general feel on of the topic about Tractus. It’s a very inflexible look at the world, were everything has a defined meaning and only a single meaning. Because of the strong mathematic outlook there is no room for uncertainty. That’s my major complaint with it.
When I started to read Witgenstein, I found i didn’t agree with his opening assumptions, so I was not inclined to finish the book. Only so much time to read so many books. Looking back, it probably didn’t accord with my moderate realist leanings.
un lecteur de philosophie mal fet
Pinnacle of Reason,
Wittgenstein is somewhat of a two-step process to learn. The Tractatus is based on a kind of “logical atomism” but he throws these ideas away in his other important book “Philosophical Investigations” for a new idea we can call “language games” where meaning comes from how we use words just as a game is defined by how its played by its players… (this explaination can be seen as a foundation for the linguistic term “illocutionary force” where the meaning of a word is determined by how we use it…) He is in stark contrast to the philsopher/psychologist Jacque Lacan because Wittgenstein claimed there can be no such thing as “private language”(hence the need for silence.) For Wittgenstein, language is only something that happens between 2 or more people… whereas Lacan believed there is such a thing as private language and it is commonly expressed as poetry but if this private language/dialog isn’t expressed in a healthy way we end up with what we call mental illness… For Noam Chomsky it is inante abilities of language itself that makes us different than all the other creatures on this planet… For Habbermas it is in language that we can hope to better our society and moral developement as a whole…
thanks for the suggestion illocutionary!
I read the Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus when I was a student of philosophy many years ago, and I returned to read it again this year. I had a little trouble grasping some of the “math” in the fourth through sixth propositions, but once again I loved and devoured the first three propositions, as well as the concluding seventh. It is a momumental work.
…and so it is! Too perfect for the species that wrote it - which would also mean too limited - as discovered by him who wrote it and in the process, discovered its virtual opposite truth.
Sorry to post again, but I just don’t get it. Why is everyone “gaa-gaa” over Mr. Wittgenstein’s (prior) work? Doesn’t the work in question say you can solve all philosophical problems if you just admit you can’t know things? How is that an asset to philosophy? Didn’t he crtitcise this view in a later (posthumous) work – along with other philosophers of that time pointing out problems with his argument? This I only know from other philosophers i also only half-understand, but from the half i do understand they seem to be more level-headed than Mr. W. was in his youth.
How can you write about how great Witt’s work is if the words mean nothing in common and you refer to no essences with your words?!
sigh! 
Yep, not ‘getting it’ myself either.
to “get it” you have to understand W didn’t solve philosophical problems…
he tried to show they weren’t really problems at all, instead they are a misaplication of the everyday lanuage we use… “shewing the fly out of the fly-bottle” is how he put it… and “Philosophical Investigations” was his posthumous work… and so what if he was wrong? I think Descartes and Kant had more than few flaws in their philosophy too but it doesn’t mean they aren’t great philosophers…
Wittgenstein is deep, but he is also unique for being very clear. He also defines his terms well. In addition, many of his key points in his books are axiom-like (okay, maybe not that extreme, but you get the idea), or at the very least, self-evident.
My only gripe was his over-usage of the Mathematical symbols, which went miles of my head, but otherwise, I liked him.
My only gripe was the same. I got lost in the logico-mathematical symbols. Otherwise, I found it fascinating and engaging.