Philosophy

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

  • Downloads：4868
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2022-10-19 05:52:40
  • Update Date：2025-09-07
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • ISBN：0486404455
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

"Philosophy is not a theory，" asserted Austro-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein （1889–1951）， "but an activity。" In this 1921 opus， his only philosophical work published during his lifetime， Wittgenstein defined the object of philosophy as the logical clarification of thoughts and proposed the solution to most philosophic problems by means of a critical method of linguistic analysis。 In proclaiming philosophy as a matter of logic rather than of metaphysics， Wittgenstein created a sensation among intellectual circles that influenced the development of logical positivism and changed the direction of 20th-century thought。

Beginning with the principles of symbolism and the necessary relations between words and objects， the author applies his theories to various branches of traditional philosophy， illustrating how mistakes arise from inappropriate use of symbolism and misuses of language。 After examining the logical structure of propositions and the nature of logical inference， he discusses the theory of knowledge as well as principles of physics and ethics and aspects of the mystical。

Supervised by the author himself， this translation from the German by C。 K。 Ogden is regarded as the definitive text。 A magisterial introduction by the distinguished philosopher Bertrand Russell hails Wittgenstein's achievement as extraordinarily important， "one which no serious philosopher can afford to neglect。" Introduction by Bertrand Russell。

Download

Reviews

Joe B。 ，

very annoying。

Davide Calò ，

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Il Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus di Wittgenstein è uno dei testi imprescindibili da leggere per comprendere lo stato dell'arte della filosofia contemporanea ed è uno degli scogli maggiori per chi non comprende la logica appieno （come il sottoscritto）。 Il risultato è chiaro e chiarificatore e， in fin dei conti， uno dei migliori testi filosofici di sempre anche se， spesso e volentieri， troppo sommerso dalla dimensione logica e meno dalla dimensione ontologica。 Bello come tutto Wittgenstein anche Il Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus di Wittgenstein è uno dei testi imprescindibili da leggere per comprendere lo stato dell'arte della filosofia contemporanea ed è uno degli scogli maggiori per chi non comprende la logica appieno （come il sottoscritto）。 Il risultato è chiaro e chiarificatore e， in fin dei conti， uno dei migliori testi filosofici di sempre anche se， spesso e volentieri， troppo sommerso dalla dimensione logica e meno dalla dimensione ontologica。 Bello come tutto Wittgenstein anche se preferisco il Secondo dal Primo。 。。。more

Rupesh Singh ，

Among the greatest。Wittgenstein said that this books contains two parts: Part 1 is what he wrote and Part 2 is what he didn't。 This statement seemed inane at first but after reading the book， it fits perfectly。In the preface he wrote that " what ever can be said， can be be said clearly and what cannot must be passed over in silence"， his ideas in the book justifies it but his method writing contradicts it。He gave the concept of Picture Theory， which he rejected in his later book but it still hol Among the greatest。Wittgenstein said that this books contains two parts: Part 1 is what he wrote and Part 2 is what he didn't。 This statement seemed inane at first but after reading the book， it fits perfectly。In the preface he wrote that " what ever can be said， can be be said clearly and what cannot must be passed over in silence"， his ideas in the book justifies it but his method writing contradicts it。He gave the concept of Picture Theory， which he rejected in his later book but it still holds its credibility even after his self-criticism about it。Wittgenstein is amongst the best in his field。 This book validates his intelligence。It is an important read for everyone but it is a necessary read for those who wants to know that what can be said by understanding what can't be said which signifies what cannot be thought about by realizing what can be thought about。 。。。more

Lorenzo Galgó ，

Que decir de la niña de mis ojos， clarificar， ordenar y dejar paso， lo transparente， belleza

Ar ，

eehh

Rhizomal Ennui ，

You know you are reading an analytic when you dont like the first sentence。

Cameron ，

Some of it went over my head， and some of it I actively disagreed with， but ultimately this provides excellent insights into the meaning of logic， how we describe reality， and how we perceive the world around us。 Very engaging food for thought！

Mason D ，

Don't know if I deserve to mark this as read， but I did read every word in it， so that's something， I think it counts。 The small bits I felt I did grasp were pretty wonderful， particularly his discussion of the mystic and solipsism; but it's all also， as many have pointed out， kind of wrong。 But who am I to say。 Mostly made me feel incredibly stupid！ And I can't quite explain what compelled me to trudge through。 So perhaps Ludwig's final proposition suffices – whereof one cannot speak， thereof o Don't know if I deserve to mark this as read， but I did read every word in it， so that's something， I think it counts。 The small bits I felt I did grasp were pretty wonderful， particularly his discussion of the mystic and solipsism; but it's all also， as many have pointed out， kind of wrong。 But who am I to say。 Mostly made me feel incredibly stupid！ And I can't quite explain what compelled me to trudge through。 So perhaps Ludwig's final proposition suffices – whereof one cannot speak， thereof one must be silent。 。。。more

Coen ，

"Aangezien politieke redevoeringen， sociologische leerboeken e。d。 hoofdzakelijk uit conjuncties bestaan， doet zich de mogelijkheid voor dat zij grotendeels zinloos zijn， wanneer al niet onzinnig， doordat aan bepaalde woorden geen betekenis gegeven is。":'） "Aangezien politieke redevoeringen， sociologische leerboeken e。d。 hoofdzakelijk uit conjuncties bestaan， doet zich de mogelijkheid voor dat zij grotendeels zinloos zijn， wanneer al niet onzinnig， doordat aan bepaalde woorden geen betekenis gegeven is。":'） 。。。more

Dylan ，

Whoever I listened to on the internet who said "Wittgenstein is the easiest to understand philosopher，" Im going to kick your ass。 I'd feel bad giving the book a 1 for my own ignorance but I will say two things:1。 It is not useful but required to have a solid grasp of logical notation in order to get even a fraction of what is said。 2。 Wittgenstein himself warns at the beginning of the book: "This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already though the thoughts which Whoever I listened to on the internet who said "Wittgenstein is the easiest to understand philosopher，" Im going to kick your ass。 I'd feel bad giving the book a 1 for my own ignorance but I will say two things:1。 It is not useful but required to have a solid grasp of logical notation in order to get even a fraction of what is said。 2。 Wittgenstein himself warns at the beginning of the book: "This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already though the thoughts which are expressed in it - or similar thoughts。"Regarding the content of the book I will refer to the thesis of the book: "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent。" 。。。more

J。S。 Bratton ，

huh， what "i" just "read" huh， what "i" just "read" 。。。more

Daniel Crouch ，

Proposition 5。6: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world。”Much of the Tractatus can seem tedious--many logical proofs concerning sets of facts or statements， propositions that restate what came before or seem painfully obvious--but each line is a necessary brick or， on my more romantic days， a brushstroke that only upon completion reveals the way we think and talk about the world we live in。

Damon Kazemi ，

A succinctly written piece of work that purports to lay to rest all the problems of philosophy。 Does it succeed？ No。 The author himself claims as much in his later and much more interesting work Philosophical Investigations。 I read this book side by side A Very Short Introduction: Wittgenstein due to its complicated nature。 I believe I grasped the main points of the book; that all of language has an underlying logic; this logic is connected to the world through the picturing relation; discoverin A succinctly written piece of work that purports to lay to rest all the problems of philosophy。 Does it succeed？ No。 The author himself claims as much in his later and much more interesting work Philosophical Investigations。 I read this book side by side A Very Short Introduction: Wittgenstein due to its complicated nature。 I believe I grasped the main points of the book; that all of language has an underlying logic; this logic is connected to the world through the picturing relation; discovering this logic will demarcate what we are permitted to say and what we shall remain silent about; and that all of philosophy up until Wittgenstein belong in the former category; and finally， that philosophy's task is to elucidate what can and cannot be said legitimately。I have to admit， in between the clear and concise passages， the formal logic flew right above my head。 I only had a background in Russell's Theory of Descriptions， and a meager one at that。 Nevertheless it serves as a great template to understand his later and arguably more important work。 。。。more

Κατερίνα Λάκκα ，

Δεν ξέρω αν γράφω απόλυτα την αλήθεια αλλά νομίζω πως είναι το αγαπημένο μου φιλοσοφικό πόνημα του 20ού αιώνα ή， τουλάχιστον， ανάμεσα στα αγαπημένα。 Η πρώτη φράση του προλόγου， πως «αυτό το βιβλίο θα το καταλάβει το άτομο που ήδη έχει κάνει αυτές τις σκέψεις» ισχύει， όπως ισχύει και το ότι πρέπει να έχεις ένα άλφα ταξικό / εκπαιδευτικό προνόμιο για να το καταλάβεις ή για να σε ενδιαφέρει να το καταλάβεις （αλλά φαντάζομαι αυτό ισχύει για τα περισσότερα έργα που έχω στα ράφια μου και για τα βιβλία Δεν ξέρω αν γράφω απόλυτα την αλήθεια αλλά νομίζω πως είναι το αγαπημένο μου φιλοσοφικό πόνημα του 20ού αιώνα ή， τουλάχιστον， ανάμεσα στα αγαπημένα。 Η πρώτη φράση του προλόγου， πως «αυτό το βιβλίο θα το καταλάβει το άτομο που ήδη έχει κάνει αυτές τις σκέψεις» ισχύει， όπως ισχύει και το ότι πρέπει να έχεις ένα άλφα ταξικό / εκπαιδευτικό προνόμιο για να το καταλάβεις ή για να σε ενδιαφέρει να το καταλάβεις （αλλά φαντάζομαι αυτό ισχύει για τα περισσότερα έργα που έχω στα ράφια μου και για τα βιβλία γενικότερα γιατί καπιταλισμός）。 Το βέβαιο είναι ότι， όταν το πρωτοδιάβασα το 2018， μπήκα σε μία πολύ συγκεκριμένη νοητική κατάσταση， ένιωσα όπως όταν έπαιζα κλίμακες στο πιάνο και ήξερα πως η μία κίνηση θα οδηγήσει συνειρμικά， μηχανικά， αρμονικά， μελωδικά στην άλλη。 Μία πολύ όμορφη σονάτα， αν σ' αρέσουν οι σονάτες。 。。。more

Alice ，

Super interesting， but 。。。 This hurt my head。Or: p ） q， in which p = reading TLP and q = a headache。 And it is then obvious that ~~p ） ~~q， ~~p being an affirmation of p and not a denial of ~p。 Obviously。

Candice ，

Worth the price of admission for the foreword alone。 I definitely lacked a lot of the foundational/ contextual knowledge to get the most out of this book， but it was still an interesting read。

Jinho ，

Didn't understand 95% of the book。 Didn't understand 95% of the book。 。。。more

Nathan Ormond ，

This book is totally weird。 It begins like some sort of logic robot trying to do metaphysics by painstakingly assessing what can be said and analysing how the world is from what can be said about it and how it is being represented。 Curtly Wittgenstein covers all of logic and mathematics before moving on to solipsism， ethics， a weird view of God that seems similar to the Hindu atman-Brahman distinction， then curtly back into what sounds like logical positivism and scientism with the limits of phi This book is totally weird。 It begins like some sort of logic robot trying to do metaphysics by painstakingly assessing what can be said and analysing how the world is from what can be said about it and how it is being represented。 Curtly Wittgenstein covers all of logic and mathematics before moving on to solipsism， ethics， a weird view of God that seems similar to the Hindu atman-Brahman distinction， then curtly back into what sounds like logical positivism and scientism with the limits of philosophy and its use being clearly demarcated and most philosophical questions being lampooned as "nonsense" in the technical sense。 So weird and puzzling。 It seems like there are some valuable insights in this book and that it's just the mad ramblings of a genuins。 。。。more

Ross ，

The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time。 [。。。] Not how the world is， is the mystical， but that it is。

Daniel Florencio ，

Listen， I’m not going to pretend that just because I have a degree in philosophy that I understood this work completely。 I simply cannot say I followed all the parts heavy in symbolic notation。 That said… I loved it。

Lauren C。 van Stratum ，

Wittgenstein truly is a genius but doesn't seem to take in mind that the world as we speak of it is the one we can observe and describe with our human minds。 Just like mathematics/logic work because it works on the foundation of human thinking。 So yes for understanding the logics of language and so the human in de earthy context this book is amazing， but for philosophising about the possibility that there is ''something'' we wil never findout out because we are limited by our own humanmind it's Wittgenstein truly is a genius but doesn't seem to take in mind that the world as we speak of it is the one we can observe and describe with our human minds。 Just like mathematics/logic work because it works on the foundation of human thinking。 So yes for understanding the logics of language and so the human in de earthy context this book is amazing， but for philosophising about the possibility that there is ''something'' we wil never findout out because we are limited by our own humanmind it's limited。 But I guess that's the whole point of Wittgenstein anyways。 loved it！ 。。。more

Leonie ，

6。3-7 pure liebe würde gern 4，5 sterne gebennicht ganz 5 weil schon zt anstrengend zu lesen undso

Alanoud ，

“Whereof one cannot speak， thereof one must be silent“。

hè ，

Notes for only myself:- Why did you add this book to the “to-read” self？ I am curious what happened？ What was the occasion？ Where did you find this？ Maybe because you were interested in linguistics and logic at that time？ Clearly this is not my jam now， but it is very interesting to know sometime in the past I was interested in these things。- Which led to a surprised and bored read。 I was dead trying to comprehend the words and figure out the arguments of the author。 “What is this mess？ Why spen Notes for only myself:- Why did you add this book to the “to-read” self？ I am curious what happened？ What was the occasion？ Where did you find this？ Maybe because you were interested in linguistics and logic at that time？ Clearly this is not my jam now， but it is very interesting to know sometime in the past I was interested in these things。- Which led to a surprised and bored read。 I was dead trying to comprehend the words and figure out the arguments of the author。 “What is this mess？ Why spends time to write the whole philosophy book about this？” - I thought from time to time。- One of the most important drives for me to finish this book was that it had German and English。 Lol I like German。But basically， our thinking is limited because of the language。 The illogical language makes us think illogical。 So the author tried to create a perfectly logical language， which was amazing and dreadful at the same time （he talked about it too much， with all the rules and the atoms， that his points became gradually meaningless towards the end， just like when we discussed about something too much in a conversation）。 Also， his attempts to preserve “sense” in every words used and sentences were utterly admirable for me， but also felt limited in the way of expressing his points。 Arghhh this is like a circle。 I would revisit the book someday when I gain the interest back。 I might have misinterpreted everything lol。 。。。more

Zak Ziebell ，

" " " " 。。。more

étienne ，

7。 Whereof one cannot speak， thereof one must be silent。 So i shall。

hayatem ，

" إن ما لا يستطيع الإنسان أن يتحدث عنه، ينبغي له أن يصمت عنه。" لودفيج فتجنشتين。الكتاب هو"بحث في نوع الفلسفة التي تستخدم المنطق أساسًا لها"، وطرق تمثيل المعرفة، أحد اشتغالات فغنشتاين في البحث في اللغة （ تحليل اللغة إلى مجموعة من القضايا الأولية。） وبخاصة في مجال بحثه عن طبيعة المنطق。مادة الكتاب صعبة وتحتاج لمزيد من القراءة لفهم ما استغلق على الأفهام من الكلام والمعنى。 " إن ما لا يستطيع الإنسان أن يتحدث عنه، ينبغي له أن يصمت عنه。" لودفيج فتجنشتين。الكتاب هو"بحث في نوع الفلسفة التي تستخدم المنطق أساسًا لها"، وطرق تمثيل المعرفة، أحد اشتغالات فغنشتاين في البحث في اللغة （ تحليل اللغة إلى مجموعة من القضايا الأولية。） وبخاصة في مجال بحثه عن طبيعة المنطق。مادة الكتاب صعبة وتحتاج لمزيد من القراءة لفهم ما استغلق على الأفهام من الكلام والمعنى。 。。。more

Sajid ，

The “experience” which we need to understand logic is not that such and such is the case， but that something is; but that is no experience。Logic precedes every experience—that something is so。It is before the How， not before the What。Since everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly， we have no barrier while using language to express ourselves without any ambiguous jargon。 Though i don't wholeheartedly agree with this proposition of Wittgenstein's， it still does clarify the The “experience” which we need to understand logic is not that such and such is the case， but that something is; but that is no experience。Logic precedes every experience—that something is so。It is before the How， not before the What。Since everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly， we have no barrier while using language to express ourselves without any ambiguous jargon。 Though i don't wholeheartedly agree with this proposition of Wittgenstein's， it still does clarify the unnecessary jargons so many philosophers piled up before him。 For Wittgenstein Logic isn’t something on which you can a make any other logical proposition，i。e logic isn’t something to be defined，it is on the contrary Logic itself which makes any proposition possible at all。 Logic is a place where meanings are always already there。Quite a strange thing to think if you take into consideration the fact that， by his own admission – stated in the preface to the “Tractatus”:The whole sense of the book might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly， and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence。 Wittgenstein’s aim was， through this book， “to set a limit to thought， or rather… to the expression of thoughts。”In other words， his goal was to find out what we can know and what we can’t know – and if there are some things we will never know no matter how much we think about them （rendering the thinking about them futile and a waste of time）。 。。。more

Kunal Shandilya ，

A lotus in the mud of philosophy

Ryan Binz ，

It is a shame that paired with a rather simple yet deeply enlightening book that can be read in an afternoon is such an imposing， enigmatic and pretentious title。 That's honestly my biggest criticism。 No one who hasn't extensively studied philosophy is going to pickup "Traticus logicus philosophicus" off a shelf， yet it is probable one of the books that most condones itself to the casual audience。 The axiom that you must accept at the foundation of this book is this: there is a relation or conne It is a shame that paired with a rather simple yet deeply enlightening book that can be read in an afternoon is such an imposing， enigmatic and pretentious title。 That's honestly my biggest criticism。 No one who hasn't extensively studied philosophy is going to pickup "Traticus logicus philosophicus" off a shelf， yet it is probable one of the books that most condones itself to the casual audience。 The axiom that you must accept at the foundation of this book is this: there is a relation or connection between a proposition and the object it is describing， which is inexplicable in language。 Thus a fundamental component of language is inexpressible linguistically。 This area of language and communication is called "the mystical"， for it cannot be expressed or discussed in language。 Out of the mystical spawns all advanced human conception: science， art， philosophy， religion， all are an attempt to speak about what necessarily cannot be spoken of。 These attempts to do so are ungrounded at best and utter jibberish at worst。 Thus the ultimate conclusion of the book: whereof one cannot speak， thereof one must be silent。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0