Wittgenstein's Tractatus

Wittgenstein's Tractatus is one of the most baffling, mysterious, brilliant, and difficult works of philosophy ever written. But the main lines of thought are relatively simple to understand. I'm going to explain them in this video.

00:00 - Intro
00:42 - The Tractatus
02:04 - Metaphysics: States of Affairs
05:05 - The Picture Theory
09:03 - Meaning and Nonsense
11:26 - Saying vs Showing
12:51 - The purpose of philosophy
14:01 - The Empiricist Interpretation
16:16 - Logical Positivism
17:44 - The Tractatus’s Influence

If there’s a topic you’d like to see covered, leave me a comment below.

Links:

Get in touch on Social media!

#Wittgenstein #philosophy

[septillionsuns]

When you understand the evolution of language on an instinctual level, the Tractatus opens like a miracle. It approaches Buddhism in its intense clarity and really brings immanence into philosophy.

[modernoverman]

I actually just finished reading the Tractatus a couple of weeks ago, and I found it far easier to understand than some other works, like Hegel or Satre. Not to say this video is unnecessary, but Wittgenstein is refreshingly clear.

[Fz]

Neat video! I have always skipped to the end of Tractatus! 😅 You've earned a subscriber!

[כלילהורביץתמרי]

Great video! I'll be glad to see another one like this but on his other famous work - Philosophical investigations

[eliad]

That he was willing to put himself out there despite noting his self-contradiction, instead of waiting forever to be perfect before doing anything infront of the eyes of another. That's quite meaningless by his standards, but very admirable nonetheless and something we could all learn from.

[davidtrindle]

Excellent, excellent teaching style!!

[zhylkos]

Amazing video! Youtube algorithm really did a good job for me today

[flambr]

literally every lecturer I have ever interacted with regarding this damn book: actually, it's a lot more complicated than that

[andrewcrowder]

Thank you for this path into the small dense thicket that is the TLP.

[johnchatz]

YESMore Wittgenstein please! It would be interesting to know what did he contribute to modern logic.I think truth tables was kinda his invention,

[tonysandy]

This sounds a bit like the way the founder of The Samaritans, Chad Varah, discovered what his organisations purpose was, when a woman visited him again and again, repeating something she was trying to get straight in her head. Every repetition made is clearer in her head what the problem (confusion) was in her head, until eventually she knew exactly what it was she meant at which point she left and never came back. As he said himself about it, he never did or said anything to the woman, just gave her space to clarify what was going through her head

[georgeoshea]

This is quite brilliant. I read Tractatus years ago and read Graylings analysis of it - this is far better than his book, to say, it shows far more understanding of what Wittgenstein’s intentions were in writing this thesis.

[lunct]

Can you briefly comment on the mystical/theological interpretations of the Tractatus?

[noedenisquentindodson]

By “meaningless” I think he meant to question the concept itself of “meaning”. What is “meaningless” isn’t necessarily “useless”.

[frankavocado]

Another excellent, clear, concise overview of a hugely complex topic. A lot of the saying/showing, meaningful/meaningless dichotomy of the Tractatus depends on the limitations of the picture (I prefer 'model') theory of meaning. If a model cannot describe its own state of representation, and this is what the Tractatus is trying to do, then all we can do is throw away the ladder. But, modal logic adds multiple possible worlds to the mix. So now, a model cannot describe its own state of representation in its own world. But from the perspective of another possible world, we can describe the original state of representation. So it's models all the way down, until we run into an actual state of affairs, somewhere ... possibly.

[RobertWF]

"Saying vs. showing" is the heart of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, is that correct?

Reminds me of the game where you attempt to define a word by using other words, but then those words require definitions, until you run out of words and can only point to the sky and say "blue", or show someone volunteering as "good", or the feeling of laughing as "funny". The meaning still exists - it's not nonsense. However it transcends language.

[paulyoung]

So love the topics, and made this philosophical theory very accessible, but honestly you looking just below the camera and not at it, really throws me off.

I know it’s small but I feel that finding a way to look right at the camera will really help bring these videos home and more attention by your audience (IMHO)

[jakethecake]

Thank you for taking the time to break this down. Excellent video!

[NyleGames]

(I think this question/statement could just be rephrasing stuff you’ve already said, but nonetheless I want to ask!)

If philosophy produces nonsense, surely the Tractatus can only hope of proving that philosophy is sensical? If it does prove philosophy is sensical we can put the question to rest. If it doesn’t, we can only keep searching to see if we can prove it’s sensical.

The Tractatus is excavating a cavern, defining the edges of what language can do, but our excavation can neither strike gold (find philosophy as sensical) or collapse on us (kick the ladder away), unless we believe it has. Doesn’t this mean the Tractatus has a subjective, dare I say it Idealistic quality or flavour?

[colesmatteo]

sold wittgenstein very short at the end. he was not some stubborn strident advocate of his first great work the way many are throughout the history of philosophy. rather he exhibited more humility and greater willingness to self critique perhaps more than any other thinker when he totally revised his view and rejected his earlier work.