Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.94 AVERAGE
3.94 AVERAGE
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
Really confusing and contradictory, with questinable application of atomic logic, but nonetheless interesting and valuable, Wittgenstein's Tractatus is a book I would highly recommend, despite not liking its content entirely.
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist. "The world is all that is the case"
Far too much math for me.
Far too much math for me.
formato neurodivergent friendly, mi sarebbe piaciuto capire qualcosa
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
slow-paced
Get those mathematical equations out of my philosophy 😡
slow-paced
Incredibly tough to read, and even tougher to make sense of. After battling through 80 pages, I was greeted with the sight of point 6.21 "A mathematical proposition does not express a thought". Maybe Witty should have taken his own advice and stopped using maths to express his thoughts, because the expression of his thoughts in this book are as clear as mud. Too complex for my tiny brain, and/or badly written and organised.
informative
reflective
fast-paced
I had my review for this book all planned out after reading proposition 5. But then I read proposition 6 and the concluding proposition, 7. And my thoughts and understanding of what Wittgenstein was saying completely changed. Granted, I couldn't follow all of his arguments, I think I got the gist. (I also read the Wiki summary afterwards)
I went into this already knowing what proposition 7 was: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
I thought he meant that people who have nothing to say shouldn't talk. But what he's saying is that we shouldn't bother saying things that can't be put into words. That the big questions of philosophy are beyond what we can make sense of.
He writes in a very mathematical style of giving a proposition and then giving his "elucidations" on each one. He also makes use of a lot of symbolic logic, which I couldn't grasp the purpose of it a majority of the time.
Ultimately, I think he's saying that philosophy is a big waste of time. I think he may be right that the big questions of philosophy are unanswerable by us who are constrained inside of this temporal space, but I disagree that this means they aren't worth asking. I don't think they are nonsensical questions. But I agree, God would need to reveal the answers (assuming we could even understand those answers haha)
I went into this already knowing what proposition 7 was: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
I thought he meant that people who have nothing to say shouldn't talk. But what he's saying is that we shouldn't bother saying things that can't be put into words. That the big questions of philosophy are beyond what we can make sense of.
He writes in a very mathematical style of giving a proposition and then giving his "elucidations" on each one. He also makes use of a lot of symbolic logic, which I couldn't grasp the purpose of it a majority of the time.
Ultimately, I think he's saying that philosophy is a big waste of time. I think he may be right that the big questions of philosophy are unanswerable by us who are constrained inside of this temporal space, but I disagree that this means they aren't worth asking. I don't think they are nonsensical questions. But I agree, God would need to reveal the answers (assuming we could even understand those answers haha)