Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Routledge Classics) (book)

This edition contains a good, if brief, introduction, and an entirely competent translation.

It's worth saying that the Tractatus in any edition is not for newcomers to philosophy. Or arguably experts either, though that's more contentious.

Has anyone noticed, however, that the front cover (clearly visible in the large online picture) mistranslates the final proposition (#7), though the book itself does not contain such an error. Bizarre.

Ah well. It's probably one of those things the copy readers just weren't able to speak of.

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was meant to put an end to philosophy. As it turned out, it didn't, because he continued to write later on in life, although after reading it, most of his contemporaries had to keep silent for a bit. It undermines much thought of the early 20th Century. It's a hard one to read. You need to go over these short aphoristic mind explosions slowly. So it's a good thing that the whole text only amounts to about 70 pages. If you do get to the end, though, you can not read philosophy in the same way again. It is worth it for the final lines. The Tractatus is something you grow into. You love it or you hate it. If you get it, you can't ignore it. If you don't, you probably will.

"This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it -- or similar thoughts", so begins Wittgenstein at the start of this confusing piece of work. He later went on to contradict much of it in his Philosophical Investigations. Russell tells us in his introduction, "In order to understand Mr Wittgenstein's book, it is necessary to realize what is the problem with which he is concerned." I have to say at the outset that I am not a trained Philosopher but I am university educated and reasonably intelligent. However I am still struggling to understand exactly what problems Wittgenstein was trying to solve never mind what the solutions are that he is proposing. Anything else I read about this work is also shrouded in confusing language which doesn't actually seem to refer to anything other than itself. The difficulties are compounded by the fact that even Philosophers themselves can't agree on what it is that he actually trying to achieve. Having said all this I, for reasons I can't fully explain, find both Wittgenstein and his work highly compelling. In parts the book seems like a very dry academic discussion on the rules of logic and yet in others reads more like The Toa Te Ching. I would appreciate it if someone would write a genuinely accessible account of his work with illustrated examples of atomic facts and the kinds of propositions he was talking about. Without a proper background it's too easy to mistakenly think you know what he's talking about. I do have a sneaking suspicion that there is something slightly tongue in cheek about Tractatus though. Consider the following quote, "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them." Was he really just pointing out the futility of most if not all philosophical thinking? He states that, "The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem". Perhaps Tractatus should be read in a similar way to a Zen Koan. A logical nonsense to illustrate the futility of trying to grasp reality by thinking about it. Perhaps not. I sure as hell don't know if this is what he intended and I get the feeling nobody else does either. Richard Feynman who hated philosophy used to say that if you can't explain an idea in a way that anyone can understand you haven't understood it yourself. If Wittgenstein couldn't explain himself in an accessible way did he have real insights to share or was it just nonsense? The jury is still out on that one for me. Either way there is something inexplicable remarkable about this book.

This book should have ended philosophy. Wittgenstein's use of Mathematics ensured that his personal prejudices (which we all have) would not interfere with his conclusions. Thus his conclusions are real conclusions rather than ideas he had before he worte the book.

He asumes nothing and 'argues out' everything.

It's rermarkable and it puts other 20thC works of philosophy in the shade.

A really unique book.