In my years of life, I never thought that someone would make a dissertation of a modern (or postmodern) philosopher because of a Visual Novel, and a good one at that, but here we are! Thanks for the great video.
The approximate topics of the individual sections: 1-2.0141 - ontology 2.02-2.063 2.1-3.144 - language, thought, representation 3.2-3.5 - the sense of propositions and names 4-4.116 - saying vs. showing 4.12-4.128 - formal concepts, concepts proper 4.2-5.156 - laws of inference 🔨 5.2-5.4611 - logical axioms, logical objects 🔨 5.47-5.54 5.541-5.641 - the “soul” 🔨 6-6.241 - the form of a proposition 6.3-6.3751 6.4-7 - ethics, metaphilosophy
I cannot overstate how much I appreciate that you made this video. Its safe to say that without it I wouldnt have been able to finish the tractatus, and not only do I believe I have a pretty good understanding of it now, but I ended up absolutely loving it. So, thank you so much for making this video!
This is one of those strange videos you find in the middle of the night with no relation to your feed whatsoever that makes the internet worth supporting.
I love to live in a world where a japanese VN inspires a random person living thousands of miles away from me to make an actual and well constructed video essay about one of the most infamously complex thinkers of early 20th century
from the way I understand it, objects according to wittgenstein are only intelligible insofar as they form states of affairs with other objects. for example, if I have a linear function on a graph, any point on the line cannot be spoken of other than its relation to another point on the line. the issue i have with this is that the objects themselves are not only unintelligible by themselves, but seem to be irrelevant to the picture theory of meaning entirely. I can picture a state of affairs in logical space without understanding the objects that make up the state of affairs, but this doesn't subtract from the meaning of the thought. for example, if i see a book that I haven't read and picture the book, the book in the picture has no definite number of pages, nor does it have any content, because I haven't read it. The physical book in the world, however, has a definite number of pages and a definite number of words, yet the picture still shows the book. I guess my main question is: is the number of pages part of what constitutes the form, and if so can the book be pictured without knowing the number of pages, and thus without knowing the form?
I think you are comiting a mistake in equating x=x' meaning the book equals the published version of the book. You could have pictured an ebook or a scroll, does that make the proposition more wrong? The correct way (i guess) would be "x book has y amount of pages" then you can compare the proposition with the state of affairs. Edit: check 5.156
You could maybe do some conceptual proof checking by analyzing the pattern of neurons that form the thought for the same structure. For example, activities in 2 dimensions have a two dimensional neuron firing pattern. How do basic configurations of neurons and what they represent relate to the logic in the philosophy?
this is such an amazing video, im so glad someone made a full analysis and explanation of this book. i might not be able to quote this video in my philosophy essays but please know that you are greatly appreciated!
Having just finished reading the Tractatus concurrently with a Reread of Subahibi, I gotta say; this was a very insightful video. Thank you for putting this together, especially the context for what Wittgenstein wrote and why. Very well researched.
@sleepycrest4264 Fancy seeing you here! I came to refresh myself on the teaching of our lord and philosophical savior! Lemme ask you, did you get through the entire Tractatus? I got up to 4.0312 before I got distracted by whatever it was that I was consuming a year back.
Thank you, this video essay helped me read the Tractatus with much more confidence, and I understood it much better due to the context you so thoroughly provided.
YOU MAKE IT LOOK EASY! fantastic video. Now, not only do i fell like i understand the positivist reading of wittgenstein but i also find his philosophy very interesting, all thanks to you.
The moment when it really clicked for me, was when I was thinking about why computers are being programmed by programming *languages*. If I can formulate something in a language, I will always be able to find an answer to it. In fact I don't even have to go searching for that answer a machine can do it just fine. But what cannot precisely be expressed in language (like `What is the meaning of life`) has no answer in language. I can, of course, make something up that I proclaim to be my meaning of life. But this is then just a sort of program, which my life runs on (similar to what Eric Berne called scripts) and has nothing to do with intrinsic `truthfulness`.
@@vogel2499 I disagree. Truth is only something that can be defined within a formal system like a language. Under certain pre-conditions, do we then describe something as being "true". However, there is nothing that could be objectively "true" in a platonic sense.
@@MrOndra31 While Wittgenstein isn't necessarily declaring platonic truths to exist in the Tractatus, Vogel is right that the "logical positivist" interpretation you're making is off base. See the discussion of the "mystical."
“Tractātus” in Latin is the perfect passive participle of “tractō” (“I tug; I drag; I haul; I pull”). The participle of which meaning “Dragged; Tugged; exercised, performed; managed.”
Thank you very very much for making this. I assume you made it as much for your own learning as ours, but you shared it and that’s the generosity of the internet that makes it great. Best to you
Bravo. Both the "traditional reading" and the "resolute reading" miss the *ethical* point of the Tractatus, by the way. For that point, it is necessary to see that Wittgenstein's view of logic was not a static one, but intimately connected to the action of the subject ("the will", as Wittgenstein says, including the application of logical operations, which determines the limits of the world and shows forth internal relations, aesthetics, and ethics -- though not independently of the world (or others/language)).
really good presentation. if you ever want to make a video on philosophical investigations and how it relates to the tractatus or something of that sort I'd watch it for sure.
You haven't uploaded for a while, so I'm guessing you are too busy to read this, but I will say it anyways. Amazing explanation and analysis. After reading Subahibi and thoroughly enjoying it, I saw this recommended by someone on a Subahibi vid and decided to check it out. Because of my poor attention span, I listened to this over the course of SEVERAL days, but I think this just added to my appreciation of your analysis and this work's propositions. As for if you were able to help towards the purpose of giving pleasure to those who read the Tractatus, I would say you have definitely succeeded on that front. Also Ayana basedgoddess.
Oh, my dude. Thank you so much for this video. I've been doing a really basic philosophy module to get my head around the topic. Week 1 had a small mention of Wittgenstein, and suggested that we go read more about the philosophers in the module IDK if you've tried this, but it's impossible to find anything about Wittgenstein's philosophy online. So I tried reading the Tractatus, and a few related works. And like, I'm barely grasping what you're saying (I can tell, like you said, that it's the text that's incomprehensible. You're doing such a good job at this omg), but it's helping me so much. Seriously, man. I'm fuckin' stoked.
Very nice. It seems to me the Tractatus is wresting with the ways that human consciousness via language reads and creates reality. Yet Wittgenstein rarely places himself in the text as author; rather it is presented as a complete object. Part of his weakness is his interest in mathematical logic; like religious philosophers before him, he must twist his thought into pretzels to make his philosophy align with his mathematics, whose logic hardly encompasses all that is human.
I have little knowledge about philosophy, but as a software developer the way his facts and states of affairs are constructed feels really familiar to me. I was reminded of logical gates and boolean logic.
@@Ethereal_dust philosophy reached its end at the beginning when the greeks acquired all that it amounted to from the indians, culminating in apophatic philosophy i.e. their method 'via negativa'. this is present in advaita vedanta, neoplatonism and first buddhism. officially it ends with John Scottus Eriugena, a neoplatonist who was the last to endorse the philosophy. post-antiquity the spirit of this philosophy diffused with the sentimentality of abrahamism, and post-rennaisance was destroyed completely, enjoying corrupt forms its various pseudo-platonisms (hegel, a platonist). then you have rubbish like existentialism come up, which is not philosophy but navel-gazing.
Truly great video! Should be the first result when searching info on the Tractatus. Well done! I would love to see similar videos on Kant or Hegel, also known to be convoluted.
Are you sure about Spinozas' influence on Ludwig? Im pretty sure the only connections between early Wittgenstein and Spinoza is the english title of Tractatus which of course could be considered as a reference to Baruch but it was proposed by George Edward Moore. I have heard that it was just an sarcastic joke by Moore.
@@rishiy6183 That can be said about anything related to Japanese otaku culture that goes deeper than Dragonball and Pokémon or whatever, they had to take down loli related advertisements in Tokyo for the olympics due to all the tourists and outsiders
what a great lecture, really, thank you. here in vienna, fully able to walk by the palais wittgenstein while reading the tractatus, there still remain more ? than !. whats the title of the graphic novel/manga/comic that brought you to the tractatus btw? cheers
Subarashiki Hibi ～ Furenzoku Sonzai (2010). Sometimes translated as "Wonderful Everyday ～ Discontinuous Existence," but usually just called Subarashiki Hibi or SubaHibi for short.
I'm pretty late to this comment but I'm going to give a pretty big content warning on that one. Also while it's rich in references I'd be careful about how they're contextualised in the vn.
@@weinrotjack9363 I'll give explaining the content warning a shot. There's some very heavy themes - suicide, sexual content (both consensual and not), and some gore. I'm not the most sensitive person ever but even I had to skip one scene in particular. As for how Wittgenstein's Tractus is used in the novel (maybe contextualized was the wrong word?)... I think I regret saying that. It's a fairly deep vn with lots of really interesting literary, and cultural references. I think it was written by someone who was very well read, but just don't expect them to have understood, and incorporated each of those books perfectly. At the end of the day it's a visual novel, not a philosophy lecture, and some artistic freedom was taken. Is it a good vn? Yes, most definitely. But I just can't in good conscience recommend it to everyone.
Im only 45 minutes in, but would i be able to visualize objects as vectors? For example temperature. Temperature can be explained as a vector: 1. It cannot be simplified any further. 2. it is a commonality between different states of affairs, just like the example of length. 3. Temperature is a building block in all state of affairs, everything has a temperature. thus it can be seen as an object. I would appreciate any directional advice
Can anyone help me with how simple objects are to be understood? Here are some questions that I cant get over: 1. If they are irreducible, shouldn't we arrive at only one kind of "simple object" (for example, a kind of atom (if that were the end of it))? But he speaks of it as if there were multiple kind of simple objects. 2. If this kind of object is independent of anything else, it means also there is no cause for it, doesn't it? So if we think in terms of causality how is that possible? Doesn't the question of creation arise hereafter? @Jade Vine how would you see this vis-a-vis the method employed by Nagarjuna? You likened the ends but their means are totally incompatible, no? Elucidations or any links to anything helpful would be much appreciated.
Objects constitute the substance of the world, so they cannot be complex. If the world had no substance, then that a sentence makes sense would have to depend on whether another was true. It would then be impossible to design an image of the world that could be true or false. This I also do not get. If we say following Nagarjuna, everything is dependent, I would argue, albeit oversimplified: The sentence/fact "the car is red" depends on the sentence/fact that "red is a color" or even " x can see color", " x is seeing the car" etc. Or is this a complete misunderstanding?
@weinrotjack @weinrotjack Thank you for the questions! And to be transparent, these sections are extremely difficult to me and it's an area (probably the only one of this work) where I believe I have a fundamental disagreement with Wittgenstein, which is why I bring up Nāgārjuna as someone who I understand more (and just because I'm biased since he's a philosopher I have also spent a lot of time trying to understand). This is my understanding. 1. Wittgenstein doesn't really seem to know what kind of simple objects there are or not. He might in fact not think it's possible to know. He only thinks that there must be something fundamental since for him there has to be something at the base of his system that isn't dependent on anything else, and clearly simple propositions like "the car is red" and "car" cannot be those he has in mind. So it seems that he thinks there are some kinds of objects that are simply re-arranged and combined separately without ever directly impacting each other. But he makes no statement about the number of them; he sees that as out of his scope of knowledge or unimportant for the matter at hand. There's a part in the Tractatus I wish I would have included in this analysis that explicitly says that even if the world were infinitely complex so that every proposition consistent of an infinite number of facts and each fact consisted of an infinite number of objects, his conclusion about the ontology of the world would still stand. 2. Yes. In Wittgenstein's own words, "superstition is belief in the causal nexus." Wittgenstein believes there is no logical base to the belief in cause or effect. Note that dependence is not the same thing as causation; dependence means that one thing cannot exist without another, while causation means that one thing has to occur before the other in time to bring the other into existence. This is a very radical conclusion but it is one that he is consistent to. The last point you mentioned gets at what I think is their fundamental difference: Wittgenstein believes, at this point in his philosophical career, it seems, that to convey meaning their must be something at the base of the ontology. Nāgārjuna doesn't. Both of them believe that the meaning of words, propositions, etc. comes through use, but Nāgārjuna believes there is only a sort of constant chain of dependence where everything depends on something else. Wittgenstein, at this point in his career at least, seems to believe that there is some kind of basis to the chain of meaning. But Wittgenstein is evasive about them. In my personal opinion, I find this kind of logical atomistic base ontology to be somewhat unusual clinger-on from the kind of Bertrand Russell-inspired logic tradition that Wittgenstein studied in which can mesh uncomfortably with other parts of the Tractatus. I see it as an influence of a western philosophical tradition that demands that philosophy begin with ontology and metaphysics to reach conclusions, while the later Wittgenstein is far more similar to Nāgārjuna, who begins in many ways from epistemological rather than ontological or metaphysical grounding. In Nāgārjuna's belief, it is impossible to find any kind of simple object at the base of an ontology. It is impossible to define anything apart from all the other things around it. In the world we live in, to use a physical allegory, things like elementary particles or strings are something close to the "simple objects" that form our quantum physics, and thus the world as we know it, but these are themselves highly theoretical constructs that depend on the things that they form (atoms, etc.) to be defined and conceived. Even if we take simple objects to be logical or theoretical rather than physical, there is a similar problem. What's interesting is that Wittgenstein seems to be aware of these difficulties in a way; he understands that if there are simple objects, they have to be so fundamental that they can barely be talked about or understood. Due to his vagueness about the idea of simple objects, there is also a big problem over whether he speaks of them according to a realist or nominalist position. While it seems evident that they aren't material, it is unsure if they are things that exist out there in the real world or if they are spoken of as constructs in our mind. I personally believe the nominalist reading could have the ability to fix the difficulties of reading it with regard to Nāgārjuna's argument. Computer coding is a good way to understand this. All the text on this screen, the comment chain on RUclips, my video, etc. are at their most simple form nothing more than 1s and 0s. That means that in the realm of computers we have a metaphysics that breaks down to simple objects of 1s and 0s, but that these 1s and 0s are still just constructs that we create for a specific purpose rather than something that inherently exists. There are no analogues to these 1s and 0s in the real world. This works in language to a degree too. We can talk about doing something for the "sake" of something else, but there is no such thing as a "sake" in the actual world that we can find. If we read Wittgenstein nominally, he might be saying that these simple objects are things we create as a system to convey meaning like 1s and 0s in a computer, without necessarily guaranteeing their real existence. Of course, this is not a perfect 1:1 comparison and ignores some fundamental differences in the way humans work from computers, but I think the nominal position is still the most philosophically sound. In his later writings, Wittgenstein actually abandons this kind of metaphysics of simple objects and, like Nāgārjuna, believes that things have meaning in favor of their use in "the stream of life" rather than based on a hierarchical ontological ground.
@@DwellingInTheFourfold Thanks for the incredibly thorough answer! Re: causation. I understand the differentiation but would it makes sense to call something truly independent if it is caused at some point? For me they seems synonymous. If my existence is dependent on you and vice-versa, don't we then cause each other in a certain sense? Or for example, man is dependent on air. If air is not, man is not. Air alone might not be the direct cause of man but there is after all a fundamental causal relationship. But if you (W) say that cause-effect is essentially superstitious, this argument would go up in smoke. Hence W is, like you said, just not at all interested in that. SparkNotes says this: "Wittgenstein never gives us an example of an object because there is nothing to be said about objects. Asking "what is an object?" is like asking "what does everything have in common?" The best answer Wittgenstein can muster to this question is that everything shares in common a logical form that allows it to occur in states of affairs. Objects are the simplest, most general things there are: the only thing that all things hold in common is that we can say something about them." Would that come close to the nominalist reading then? As for the rest, I have to go into it deeper to really grasp the whole picture here. I might come back to this post once things become clearer. Do you have any essential recommended reading re: Tractatus and Nagarjuna?
@weinrotjack I think I can agree with your idea of causation and dependence to a degree, but for me the primary difference is that causation on some level involves time or ordering. For example, X happening first that has a power in it to bring about Y, then Y being brought about after X because of the Y-bringing power, or something like that. Whereas dependence does not entail that. Dependence just means that one thing cannot exist without the other. At the very least, and this is more evident near the end of Proposition 6, Wittgenstein explicitly believes that "this event happened, therefore another one must necessarily happen" is not a logical conclusion (this argument echoes Hume), and therefore seems to be rejecting the temporal, chronological kind of causation. I suppose if we want to interpret causation as not necessarily temporal and chronological and simply as "A not being able to exist without B," then you could say that Wittgenstein believes in this kind of causation. In fact, maybe that's why he uses the phrase "the causal nexus" instead of "causation"! On the surface, when I read these sections of the Tractatus, it sounds like there are simple objects that are the foundation of the entire ontology. It doesn't seem to say that they are "uncaused" or not (since for Wittgenstein causation as a whole doesn't really apply to logic), but they are irreducible to anything else, which is what is really key. And then depending on how they are "combined" or "arranged" so to say, they create facts. I think this is difficult to grasp because the whole thing is a lot more abstract and theoretical than it seems. They don't to "combine" in a way that occurs in a point in time and has a physical, observable process, but rather "combine" in the way that, say, 2 + 3 combines 2 and 3 to create 5. We tend to anthropomorphize this relation in our thoughts of 2 existing, then 3 being added to it, then 5 occurring chronologically, but in reality math equations don't occur temporally. So I think that these relations are all things that occur like equations, not in time. At least this is how I read it. And yes, I think that quote sounds similar to the nominalist reading for me. It explains it in the sense of a system of logic, though it doesn't seem to know whether that system of logic is something that inherently exists in the world or is something that exists at the level of our minds understanding the world. I tend toward the latter reading (maybe because of a bias that makes me not want the idea of something irreducible to exist in nature, since Nāgārjuna doesn't like this idea). For the Tractatus and Wittgenstein, I'm a fan of "Wittgenstein" by William Child in the Routledge Philosophers series, which discusses the whole object/fact/etc. ontology at the beginning and the realist/nominalist distinction very well. The only thing I'm not so fond of is that skips (and admits openly to omitting for the sake of time, granted) analysis of the "truth in solipsism" section near the end of Proposition 5, which I find one of the most interesting areas. Peter Sullivan, Lucy O'Brien, and Hilary Putnam have apparently written a lot more on this solipsism section but I haven't read their works yet. For Nāgārjuna I've read more. I think "Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction" by Jan Westerhoff is a marvelous book which not only explores the ideas in depth and with clarity, but also does more to explain the strange argumentative form of Nāgārjuna's dialectic more than others, which is too often overlooked and can make his arguments hard to follow at first glance. After that, to really delve into the meaty verses themselves with a full analysis of the most important philosophical work by him, I highly recommend "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā" translated by Jay L. Garfield. Cheers!
1. Why wouldn't there be different 'types' of simple objects? Wittgenstein never decisively stated what those simple objects would be, but he did lean towards sense data. The sentence 'the car is red' could then ultimately be analyzed into 'there is a black dot here and a red dot there and another red dot there etc' - and the same of course for auditive data and so on. Only now could it not be analyzed any further. His reason for believing in the existence of simple objects is not that hard to understand. 'my cat lies under my bed' as all sentences consists entirely of names. It makes sense even if my cat has passed and does not exist anymore. Therefore, 'my cat' cannot be one of those names, because if it were, with the passing of my cat one of the names would stop referring to some thing in the world rendering the sentence meaningless. Therefore, there have to be simple (i. e. indestructible) objects. 2: this should clarify that causality has little to do with it.
Thank you. It's called Subarashiki HIbi ~ Furenzoku Sonzai and it's a visual novel that uses the Tractatus as a kind of motif repeatedly. There are some pretty abstract and heady philosophy dialogues with that character (Ayana) and I thought it would be fun to replicate that in my video. I highly recommend the visual novel as long as you can handle some pretty dark and lurid content.
Aristotle not Rationalist. Proto-empiricist who believed Reason could also derive Knowledge from examining concepts intellectually received from sense perception: materially instantiated Universals. See Raphael's magnificent painting School of Athens
@@duskdancer7577 I wish you to not get bored while playing it. The game has extremely outdated and amateurish writing and there are much more newer and beter philosophical VNs other than subahibi (like Alter Ego by Caramel Column)
" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both. Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of. Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way. This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him. My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha. The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!" Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?" Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer, and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you." Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die." Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman. So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life. Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."
man SubarashikiHibi really can mess a guy up. Thankfully I read White Album 2 after reading that one. WA2. was that last VN I ever read. Thankfully, and also sadly, life is too busy for me now to read anymore VNs. But I really wanted to read To Heart 2. If they ever translate Saturn or PS1 Tokimeki Memorial ill play those for sure regardless of free time.
I'm just 22:49 deep here, but could the "objects" allude to a verifiable source of information that backs up (or not) states of affairs in the logical space, rendering facts true or false? I'll suggest an allegory of objects being guesses, states being a box's lid and the facts the content of said box; your guess might or not be confirmed upon the opening, but the contents always remain the same.
never take this video off RUclips for as long as it exists please
Ayana's infodumps got out of hand
only infodumps which i actually enjoy and make narrative sense
In my years of life, I never thought that someone would make a dissertation of a modern (or postmodern) philosopher because of a Visual Novel, and a good one at that, but here we are! Thanks for the great video.
Clicked for the anime girl, stayed for everything else
I think its a guy
why did you click for a 2000s bad quality version of a small animated female figure ..? no this can't be perversion this person must have a life..
@@sfdvas Looks feminine enough
@@sfdvas I'm sorry, you're gay.
@@sfdvasit’s not
Introduction 0:01
Biography 0:33
Context and Overview 10:34
18:37 1-2.0141
28:29 2.02-2.063
37:28 2.1-3.144
50:12 3.2-3.5
1:09:20 4-4.116
1:18:11 4.12-4.128
1:28:01 4.2-5.156
1:41:13 5.2-5.4611
1:52:53 5.47-5.54
2:06:26 5.541-5.641
2:19:21 6-6.241
2:28:35 6.3-6.3751
2:40:46 6.4-7
Personal background 2:59:26
Closing 3:00:42
The approximate topics of the individual sections:
1-2.0141 - ontology
2.02-2.063
2.1-3.144 - language, thought, representation
3.2-3.5 - the sense of propositions and names
4-4.116 - saying vs. showing
4.12-4.128 - formal concepts, concepts proper
4.2-5.156 - laws of inference 🔨
5.2-5.4611 - logical axioms, logical objects 🔨
5.47-5.54
5.541-5.641 - the “soul” 🔨
6-6.241 - the form of a proposition
6.3-6.3751
6.4-7 - ethics, metaphilosophy
Thank you so much for this!
go and search "wittgenstein brought back to life" - thank me later
You're the goat
I cannot overstate how much I appreciate that you made this video. Its safe to say that without it I wouldnt have been able to finish the tractatus, and not only do I believe I have a pretty good understanding of it now, but I ended up absolutely loving it. So, thank you so much for making this video!
This is one of those strange videos you find in the middle of the night with no relation to your feed whatsoever that makes the internet worth supporting.
reading Wittgenstein and NOT going "holy shit" is an impossibility
How
@@Dubulcle ly shit
I love to live in a world where a japanese VN inspires a random person living thousands of miles away from me to make an actual and well constructed video essay about one of the most infamously complex thinkers of early 20th century
This is the best philosophical overview and explainer guide on the RUclips. Thanku for your services.
from the way I understand it, objects according to wittgenstein are only intelligible insofar as they form states of affairs with other objects. for example, if I have a linear function on a graph, any point on the line cannot be spoken of other than its relation to another point on the line.
the issue i have with this is that the objects themselves are not only unintelligible by themselves, but seem to be irrelevant to the picture theory of meaning entirely. I can picture a state of affairs in logical space without understanding the objects that make up the state of affairs, but this doesn't subtract from the meaning of the thought. for example, if i see a book that I haven't read and picture the book, the book in the picture has no definite number of pages, nor does it have any content, because I haven't read it. The physical book in the world, however, has a definite number of pages and a definite number of words, yet the picture still shows the book.
I guess my main question is:
is the number of pages part of what constitutes the form, and if so can the book be pictured without knowing the number of pages, and thus without knowing the form?
I think you are comiting a mistake in equating x=x' meaning the book equals the published version of the book. You could have pictured an ebook or a scroll, does that make the proposition more wrong? The correct way (i guess) would be "x book has y amount of pages" then you can compare the proposition with the state of affairs.
Edit: check 5.156
A book is not a fact. In this ontology it is only facts that exist, so these are the only kinds of thing you can form a picture of.
Huh
Very simply, it might be that thinking cannot represent. What is representation after all, and can thinking really do it? I do not believe it can.
You could maybe do some conceptual proof checking by analyzing the pattern of neurons that form the thought for the same structure. For example, activities in 2 dimensions have a two dimensional neuron firing pattern. How do basic configurations of neurons and what they represent relate to the logic in the philosophy?
you clickbaited me perfectly with the anime and the video was still amazing, good work
Based and Ayanapilled
Yess
Ah mira Zeif, que cosa encontrarte aquí xd
based and dino pilled
this is such an amazing video, im so glad someone made a full analysis and explanation of this book. i might not be able to quote this video in my philosophy essays but please know that you are greatly appreciated!
Having just finished reading the Tractatus concurrently with a Reread of Subahibi, I gotta say; this was a very insightful video. Thank you for putting this together, especially the context for what Wittgenstein wrote and why. Very well researched.
Didnt expect to see le wild sleepy crest here... Or maybe i should have?
Hey there Sleepy. 👋
@@EctrosParlor meowdy
@sleepycrest4264 Fancy seeing you here! I came to refresh myself on the teaching of our lord and philosophical savior!
Lemme ask you, did you get through the entire Tractatus? I got up to 4.0312 before I got distracted by whatever it was that I was consuming a year back.
Thank you, this video essay helped me read the Tractatus with much more confidence, and I understood it much better due to the context you so thoroughly provided.
why are people who have no interest in continental philosophy being recommended this ... i love it
this is the greatest video on the platform, without any exaggeration
Ayana really pulls it all together.
YOU MAKE IT LOOK EASY! fantastic video. Now, not only do i fell like i understand the positivist reading of wittgenstein but i also find his philosophy very interesting, all thanks to you.
go and search "wittgenstein brought back to life" - thank me later
I will watch the rest of this later but what you have presented so far is very interesting and I really wanna learn more about Wittgenstein.
Amazing video, the Tractatus is my fav philosophical book and this might be the best video i've seen on it yet.
Unfathomably, incalculably, immeasurably based.
A beautiful video on a beautiful book from a beautiful mind
One of the best videos about the Tractatus in RUclips. Thank you! :)
After like a year of shitty youtube recommendations they hit me with this absolute fucking gold mine. Fantastic job.
if i could go back in time i’d make wittgenstein play subahibi 😂
he was a mech eng student, he'd probably do it
He would've absolutely loved VNs
@@jKherty💀
imagine showing Subahibi to a victorian child
@@FlynnMegaTensei "Banger, I love Zakuro" - Victorian child
I will never be able to parse what it means but I'm glad this video exists.
Many thanks. You have blessed the minds of many philosophy students
The moment when it really clicked for me, was when I was thinking about why computers are being programmed by programming *languages*. If I can formulate something in a language, I will always be able to find an answer to it. In fact I don't even have to go searching for that answer a machine can do it just fine. But what cannot precisely be expressed in language (like `What is the meaning of life`) has no answer in language.
I can, of course, make something up that I proclaim to be my meaning of life. But this is then just a sort of program, which my life runs on (similar to what Eric Berne called scripts) and has nothing to do with intrinsic `truthfulness`.
I think you're only covered half-of-the-point. Even if we can't express/answered something in some language, doesn't mean it's not true/meaningful.
@@vogel2499 I disagree. Truth is only something that can be defined within a formal system like a language. Under certain pre-conditions, do we then describe something as being "true". However, there is nothing that could be objectively "true" in a platonic sense.
@@MrOndra31 While Wittgenstein isn't necessarily declaring platonic truths to exist in the Tractatus, Vogel is right that the "logical positivist" interpretation you're making is off base. See the discussion of the "mystical."
You can't always find a knowably correct answer though.
My thought exactly! I was intensely reminded reminded of computers and programming.
“Tractātus” in Latin is the perfect passive participle of “tractō” (“I tug; I drag; I haul; I pull”). The participle of which meaning “Dragged; Tugged; exercised, performed; managed.”
No sh1t sherlock
Thank you very very much for making this. I assume you made it as much for your own learning as ours, but you shared it and that’s the generosity of the internet that makes it great. Best to you
Thank you sir I am ready to read subahibi now.
Bravo.
Both the "traditional reading" and the "resolute reading" miss the *ethical* point of the Tractatus, by the way. For that point, it is necessary to see that Wittgenstein's view of logic was not a static one, but intimately connected to the action of the subject ("the will", as Wittgenstein says, including the application of logical operations, which determines the limits of the world and shows forth internal relations, aesthetics, and ethics -- though not independently of the world (or others/language)).
Incredible video! The best I've seen on Wittgenstein by far.
the thumbnail algorithm engineering on this is going crazy
really good presentation. if you ever want to make a video on philosophical investigations and how it relates to the tractatus or something of that sort I'd watch it for sure.
You haven't uploaded for a while, so I'm guessing you are too busy to read this, but I will say it anyways. Amazing explanation and analysis. After reading Subahibi and thoroughly enjoying it, I saw this recommended by someone on a Subahibi vid and decided to check it out. Because of my poor attention span, I listened to this over the course of SEVERAL days, but I think this just added to my appreciation of your analysis and this work's propositions. As for if you were able to help towards the purpose of giving pleasure to those who read the Tractatus, I would say you have definitely succeeded on that front.
Also Ayana basedgoddess.
I still check comments even if I've been to busy to upload recently. I am glad you found value in it :)
Oh, my dude. Thank you so much for this video. I've been doing a really basic philosophy module to get my head around the topic. Week 1 had a small mention of Wittgenstein, and suggested that we go read more about the philosophers in the module
IDK if you've tried this, but it's impossible to find anything about Wittgenstein's philosophy online. So I tried reading the Tractatus, and a few related works. And like, I'm barely grasping what you're saying (I can tell, like you said, that it's the text that's incomprehensible. You're doing such a good job at this omg), but it's helping me so much.
Seriously, man. I'm fuckin' stoked.
Very nice. It seems to me the Tractatus is wresting with the ways that human consciousness via language reads and creates reality. Yet Wittgenstein rarely places himself in the text as author; rather it is presented as a complete object. Part of his weakness is his interest in mathematical logic; like religious philosophers before him, he must twist his thought into pretzels to make his philosophy align with his mathematics, whose logic hardly encompasses all that is human.
Thanks a lot for this. I’m not super intelligent and I was struggling to get through this book, until I found this video.
kimika best girl
I love Duty of genius, my favorite biography of all time
word up brother ludwig wittgenstein spoke facts i cant lie.
I have little knowledge about philosophy, but as a software developer the way his facts and states of affairs are constructed feels really familiar to me. I was reminded of logical gates and boolean logic.
philosophy started and ended with the greeks. everything else is pointless navel-gazing nonsense.
@@pseudoplotinus would you like to elaborate?
@@Ethereal_dust philosophy reached its end at the beginning when the greeks acquired all that it amounted to from the indians, culminating in apophatic philosophy i.e. their method 'via negativa'. this is present in advaita vedanta, neoplatonism and first buddhism. officially it ends with John Scottus Eriugena, a neoplatonist who was the last to endorse the philosophy. post-antiquity the spirit of this philosophy diffused with the sentimentality of abrahamism, and post-rennaisance was destroyed completely, enjoying corrupt forms its various pseudo-platonisms (hegel, a platonist). then you have rubbish like existentialism come up, which is not philosophy but navel-gazing.
@@pseudoplotinuswhat do you have to say about contemporary analytic philosophy?
@@pika_speed utterly pointless and contributes only to confusion
Truly great video! Should be the first result when searching info on the Tractatus. Well done! I would love to see similar videos on Kant or Hegel, also known to be convoluted.
Can't believe this wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for a hardcore gore cp mongolian digital picture book
gonna watch this for the sake of ayana ty
I gotta ask, what are some of your favourite works of art?
Are you sure about Spinozas' influence on Ludwig? Im pretty sure the only connections between early Wittgenstein and Spinoza is the english title of Tractatus which of course could be considered as a reference to Baruch but it was proposed by George Edward Moore. I have heard that it was just an sarcastic joke by Moore.
I gotta read Subahibi I have never read any VNs but I read both Logico philosophical treatise and philosophical letters by Wittgenstein
I heard this is filled with gross pedo stuff so beware.
@@rishiy6183
That can be said about anything related to Japanese otaku culture that goes deeper than Dragonball and Pokémon or whatever, they had to take down loli related advertisements in Tokyo for the olympics due to all the tourists and outsiders
Otonashi Ayana, I liked the part where she talks about the problem with immortality
This was wonderful. Live happily (:
very interesting to see this after reading both early and late wittgenstein. very nice. Also Hegel when?
what a great lecture, really, thank you. here in vienna, fully able to walk by the palais wittgenstein while reading the tractatus, there still remain more ? than !. whats the title of the graphic novel/manga/comic that brought you to the tractatus btw? cheers
Subarashiki Hibi ～ Furenzoku Sonzai (2010).
Sometimes translated as "Wonderful Everyday ～ Discontinuous Existence," but usually just called Subarashiki Hibi or SubaHibi for short.
I'm pretty late to this comment but I'm going to give a pretty big content warning on that one. Also while it's rich in references I'd be careful about how they're contextualised in the vn.
@@rex9912 could you elaborate on the warning and how its contextualised? was thinking about buying the game but now i'm not sure anymore
@@weinrotjack9363 I'll give explaining the content warning a shot. There's some very heavy themes - suicide, sexual content (both consensual and not), and some gore. I'm not the most sensitive person ever but even I had to skip one scene in particular.
As for how Wittgenstein's Tractus is used in the novel (maybe contextualized was the wrong word?)... I think I regret saying that. It's a fairly deep vn with lots of really interesting literary, and cultural references. I think it was written by someone who was very well read, but just don't expect them to have understood, and incorporated each of those books perfectly. At the end of the day it's a visual novel, not a philosophy lecture, and some artistic freedom was taken.
Is it a good vn? Yes, most definitely. But I just can't in good conscience recommend it to everyone.
@@rex9912 thank you very much for taking the time to explain
Well.. that was a nice 3 hour experience. Proposition 7 was a great plot twist
Let us consume 2024 content, esoteric philosophy and anime.
calling wittgenstein esoteric is crazy
me when i install arch linux
Thanks for putting in the work to make this video! This book is tough to understand on its own.
Goat and Ayanapilled
Wow. This video is unique. Step by step explanation!
nothing is hidden everything is plain in sight
Make videos again please😢
yt algorithm is cooking this night
I cant grasp how logic coresponeds with phenomenal world.
This is so randomly popular
3 HOURS?? yeah im watching this for sure
Im only 45 minutes in, but would i be able to visualize objects as vectors?
For example temperature. Temperature can be explained as a vector:
1. It cannot be simplified any further.
2. it is a commonality between different states of affairs, just like the example of length.
3. Temperature is a building block in all state of affairs, everything has a temperature.
thus it can be seen as an object.
I would appreciate any directional advice
Nice video, thanks for the explanation.
thank you for making this
Can anyone help me with how simple objects are to be understood? Here are some questions that I cant get over:
1. If they are irreducible, shouldn't we arrive at only one kind of "simple object" (for example, a kind of atom (if that were the end of it))? But he speaks of it as if there were multiple kind of simple objects.
2. If this kind of object is independent of anything else, it means also there is no cause for it, doesn't it? So if we think in terms of causality how is that possible? Doesn't the question of creation arise hereafter?
@Jade Vine how would you see this vis-a-vis the method employed by Nagarjuna? You likened the ends but their means are totally incompatible, no?
Elucidations or any links to anything helpful would be much appreciated.
Objects constitute the substance of the world, so they cannot be complex. If the world had no substance, then that a sentence makes sense would have to depend on whether another was true. It would then be impossible to design an image of the world that could be true or false.
This I also do not get. If we say following Nagarjuna, everything is dependent, I would argue, albeit oversimplified: The sentence/fact "the car is red" depends on the sentence/fact that "red is a color" or even " x can see color", " x is seeing the car" etc.
Or is this a complete misunderstanding?
@weinrotjack @weinrotjack Thank you for the questions! And to be transparent, these sections are extremely difficult to me and it's an area (probably the only one of this work) where I believe I have a fundamental disagreement with Wittgenstein, which is why I bring up Nāgārjuna as someone who I understand more (and just because I'm biased since he's a philosopher I have also spent a lot of time trying to understand). This is my understanding.
1. Wittgenstein doesn't really seem to know what kind of simple objects there are or not. He might in fact not think it's possible to know. He only thinks that there must be something fundamental since for him there has to be something at the base of his system that isn't dependent on anything else, and clearly simple propositions like "the car is red" and "car" cannot be those he has in mind. So it seems that he thinks there are some kinds of objects that are simply re-arranged and combined separately without ever directly impacting each other. But he makes no statement about the number of them; he sees that as out of his scope of knowledge or unimportant for the matter at hand. There's a part in the Tractatus I wish I would have included in this analysis that explicitly says that even if the world were infinitely complex so that every proposition consistent of an infinite number of facts and each fact consisted of an infinite number of objects, his conclusion about the ontology of the world would still stand.
2. Yes. In Wittgenstein's own words, "superstition is belief in the causal nexus." Wittgenstein believes there is no logical base to the belief in cause or effect. Note that dependence is not the same thing as causation; dependence means that one thing cannot exist without another, while causation means that one thing has to occur before the other in time to bring the other into existence. This is a very radical conclusion but it is one that he is consistent to.
The last point you mentioned gets at what I think is their fundamental difference: Wittgenstein believes, at this point in his philosophical career, it seems, that to convey meaning their must be something at the base of the ontology. Nāgārjuna doesn't. Both of them believe that the meaning of words, propositions, etc. comes through use, but Nāgārjuna believes there is only a sort of constant chain of dependence where everything depends on something else. Wittgenstein, at this point in his career at least, seems to believe that there is some kind of basis to the chain of meaning. But Wittgenstein is evasive about them.
In my personal opinion, I find this kind of logical atomistic base ontology to be somewhat unusual clinger-on from the kind of Bertrand Russell-inspired logic tradition that Wittgenstein studied in which can mesh uncomfortably with other parts of the Tractatus. I see it as an influence of a western philosophical tradition that demands that philosophy begin with ontology and metaphysics to reach conclusions, while the later Wittgenstein is far more similar to Nāgārjuna, who begins in many ways from epistemological rather than ontological or metaphysical grounding. In Nāgārjuna's belief, it is impossible to find any kind of simple object at the base of an ontology. It is impossible to define anything apart from all the other things around it. In the world we live in, to use a physical allegory, things like elementary particles or strings are something close to the "simple objects" that form our quantum physics, and thus the world as we know it, but these are themselves highly theoretical constructs that depend on the things that they form (atoms, etc.) to be defined and conceived. Even if we take simple objects to be logical or theoretical rather than physical, there is a similar problem. What's interesting is that Wittgenstein seems to be aware of these difficulties in a way; he understands that if there are simple objects, they have to be so fundamental that they can barely be talked about or understood.
Due to his vagueness about the idea of simple objects, there is also a big problem over whether he speaks of them according to a realist or nominalist position. While it seems evident that they aren't material, it is unsure if they are things that exist out there in the real world or if they are spoken of as constructs in our mind. I personally believe the nominalist reading could have the ability to fix the difficulties of reading it with regard to Nāgārjuna's argument. Computer coding is a good way to understand this. All the text on this screen, the comment chain on RUclips, my video, etc. are at their most simple form nothing more than 1s and 0s. That means that in the realm of computers we have a metaphysics that breaks down to simple objects of 1s and 0s, but that these 1s and 0s are still just constructs that we create for a specific purpose rather than something that inherently exists. There are no analogues to these 1s and 0s in the real world. This works in language to a degree too. We can talk about doing something for the "sake" of something else, but there is no such thing as a "sake" in the actual world that we can find. If we read Wittgenstein nominally, he might be saying that these simple objects are things we create as a system to convey meaning like 1s and 0s in a computer, without necessarily guaranteeing their real existence. Of course, this is not a perfect 1:1 comparison and ignores some fundamental differences in the way humans work from computers, but I think the nominal position is still the most philosophically sound. In his later writings, Wittgenstein actually abandons this kind of metaphysics of simple objects and, like Nāgārjuna, believes that things have meaning in favor of their use in "the stream of life" rather than based on a hierarchical ontological ground.
@@DwellingInTheFourfold Thanks for the incredibly thorough answer!
Re: causation. I understand the differentiation but would it makes sense to call something truly independent if it is caused at some point? For me they seems synonymous. If my existence is dependent on you and vice-versa, don't we then cause each other in a certain sense? Or for example, man is dependent on air. If air is not, man is not. Air alone might not be the direct cause of man but there is after all a fundamental causal relationship. But if you (W) say that cause-effect is essentially superstitious, this argument would go up in smoke. Hence W is, like you said, just not at all interested in that.
SparkNotes says this: "Wittgenstein never gives us an example of an object because there is nothing to be said about objects. Asking "what is an object?" is like asking "what does everything have in common?" The best answer Wittgenstein can muster to this question is that everything shares in common a logical form that allows it to occur in states of affairs. Objects are the simplest, most general things there are: the only thing that all things hold in common is that we can say something about them."
Would that come close to the nominalist reading then?
As for the rest, I have to go into it deeper to really grasp the whole picture here. I might come back to this post once things become clearer. Do you have any essential recommended reading re: Tractatus and Nagarjuna?
@weinrotjack I think I can agree with your idea of causation and dependence to a degree, but for me the primary difference is that causation on some level involves time or ordering. For example, X happening first that has a power in it to bring about Y, then Y being brought about after X because of the Y-bringing power, or something like that. Whereas dependence does not entail that. Dependence just means that one thing cannot exist without the other. At the very least, and this is more evident near the end of Proposition 6, Wittgenstein explicitly believes that "this event happened, therefore another one must necessarily happen" is not a logical conclusion (this argument echoes Hume), and therefore seems to be rejecting the temporal, chronological kind of causation. I suppose if we want to interpret causation as not necessarily temporal and chronological and simply as "A not being able to exist without B," then you could say that Wittgenstein believes in this kind of causation. In fact, maybe that's why he uses the phrase "the causal nexus" instead of "causation"!
On the surface, when I read these sections of the Tractatus, it sounds like there are simple objects that are the foundation of the entire ontology. It doesn't seem to say that they are "uncaused" or not (since for Wittgenstein causation as a whole doesn't really apply to logic), but they are irreducible to anything else, which is what is really key. And then depending on how they are "combined" or "arranged" so to say, they create facts. I think this is difficult to grasp because the whole thing is a lot more abstract and theoretical than it seems. They don't to "combine" in a way that occurs in a point in time and has a physical, observable process, but rather "combine" in the way that, say, 2 + 3 combines 2 and 3 to create 5. We tend to anthropomorphize this relation in our thoughts of 2 existing, then 3 being added to it, then 5 occurring chronologically, but in reality math equations don't occur temporally. So I think that these relations are all things that occur like equations, not in time. At least this is how I read it.
And yes, I think that quote sounds similar to the nominalist reading for me. It explains it in the sense of a system of logic, though it doesn't seem to know whether that system of logic is something that inherently exists in the world or is something that exists at the level of our minds understanding the world. I tend toward the latter reading (maybe because of a bias that makes me not want the idea of something irreducible to exist in nature, since Nāgārjuna doesn't like this idea).
For the Tractatus and Wittgenstein, I'm a fan of "Wittgenstein" by William Child in the Routledge Philosophers series, which discusses the whole object/fact/etc. ontology at the beginning and the realist/nominalist distinction very well. The only thing I'm not so fond of is that skips (and admits openly to omitting for the sake of time, granted) analysis of the "truth in solipsism" section near the end of Proposition 5, which I find one of the most interesting areas. Peter Sullivan, Lucy O'Brien, and Hilary Putnam have apparently written a lot more on this solipsism section but I haven't read their works yet.
For Nāgārjuna I've read more. I think "Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction" by Jan Westerhoff is a marvelous book which not only explores the ideas in depth and with clarity, but also does more to explain the strange argumentative form of Nāgārjuna's dialectic more than others, which is too often overlooked and can make his arguments hard to follow at first glance. After that, to really delve into the meaty verses themselves with a full analysis of the most important philosophical work by him, I highly recommend "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā" translated by Jay L. Garfield.
Cheers!
1. Why wouldn't there be different 'types' of simple objects? Wittgenstein never decisively stated what those simple objects would be, but he did lean towards sense data. The sentence 'the car is red' could then ultimately be analyzed into 'there is a black dot here and a red dot there and another red dot there etc' - and the same of course for auditive data and so on. Only now could it not be analyzed any further.
His reason for believing in the existence of simple objects is not that hard to understand. 'my cat lies under my bed' as all sentences consists entirely of names. It makes sense even if my cat has passed and does not exist anymore. Therefore, 'my cat' cannot be one of those names, because if it were, with the passing of my cat one of the names would stop referring to some thing in the world rendering the sentence meaningless. Therefore, there have to be simple (i. e. indestructible) objects.
2: this should clarify that causality has little to do with it.
Yo, nice explanation. Btw what anime is on the background?
Thank you. It's called Subarashiki HIbi ~ Furenzoku Sonzai and it's a visual novel that uses the Tractatus as a kind of motif repeatedly. There are some pretty abstract and heady philosophy dialogues with that character (Ayana) and I thought it would be fun to replicate that in my video.
I highly recommend the visual novel as long as you can handle some pretty dark and lurid content.
@@DwellingInTheFourfold Thank you very much, I will look at it. Tell me are maybe studying philosophy?
Gonna be real with you. I ain't watching all of that, but I respect the work you put into it. Love Subahibi btw
Now I gotta finish Wonderful Everyday.
Learned of wittgenstein through Alan Watts. He thought very highly of him.
It sucks that they took down the video of Alan watts discussing the Tractatus. I can’t find it anywhere
@@lettersfromanihilist9092 here's a transcript of it.
www.alanwatts.org/3-3-11-ghosts/
Will thank you! u knew the exact lecture I was talking about lol
@@lettersfromanihilist9092 you're welcome. I've likely got that one as mp3. Will try to hunt it down soon. I've listened to them too much. Lol
Will I would actually appreciate that so much, I feel like he was one of the few people who understood him
Great work
Great change in philosophy: 1776 Jefferson self-evident, Kant 1781 A priori.
Great video, thank you for making it!
Terrence McKenna said alot about Wittgenstein type philosophy
Aristotle not Rationalist. Proto-empiricist who believed Reason could also derive Knowledge from examining concepts intellectually received from sense perception: materially instantiated Universals. See Raphael's magnificent painting School of Athens
those who know, remain silent
Clicked for the thumbnail
He wanted to lay out truth but I don’t think he ever intended to be understood
Good video. Love from Argentina
How did I get here from watching Berserk clips
Thanks a lot❤️
Shouldve used a lewder anime photo if you wanted maximum clickbait efficiency
wtf is subahibi about bro 😭
A dream inside a dream inside another dream
@@duskdancer7577 I wish you to not get bored while playing it. The game has extremely outdated and amateurish writing and there are much more newer and beter philosophical VNs other than subahibi (like Alter Ego by Caramel Column)
@@duskdancer7577 get the patch if you're on steam!
@@Astareia7312do u have more recommendation?
@@Astareia7312 a friend of mine said that if i end up finding this interesting, i should definitely go read alter ego, so thank u :>
Best video of the earth!!!!
The Sheffer Stroke stuff is making me freak out.
Amazing, keep up the good work
this is splendid. thank you very much
" This is for the real adepts in madness, who have gone beyond all psychiatry, psychoanalysis, who are unhelpable. This third book is again the work of a German, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just listen to its title: TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. We will just call it TRACTATUS. It is one of the most difficult books in existence. Even a man like G.E.Moore, a great English philosopher, and
Bertrand Russell, another great philosopher - not only English but a philosopher of the whole world - both agreed that this man Wittgenstein was far superior to them both.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was really a lovable man. I don't hate him, but I don't dislike him. I like him and I love him, but not his book. His book is only gymnastics. Only once in a while after pages and pages you may come across a sentence which is luminous. For example: That which cannot be spoken should not be spoken; one should be silent about it. Now this is a beautiful statement. Even saints, mystics, poets, can learn much from this sentence. That which cannot be spoken must not be spoken of.
Wittgenstein writes in a mathematical way, small sentences, not even paragraphs - sutras. But for the very advanced insane man this book can be of immense help. It can hit him exactly in his soul, not only in the head. Just like a nail it can penetrate into his very being. That may wake him from his nightmare.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was a lovable man. He was offered one of the most cherished chairs of philosophy at Oxford. He declined. That's what I love in him. He went to become a farmer and fisherman. This is lovable in the man. This is more existential than Jean-Paul Sartre, although Wittgenstein never talked of existentialism. Existentialism, by the way, cannot be talked about; you have to live it, there is no other way.
This book was written when Wittgenstein was studying under G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell.
Two great philosophers of Britain, and a German... it was enough to create TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated it means Wittgenstein, Moore and Russell. I, on my part, would rather have seen Wittgenstein sitting at the feet of Gurdjieff than studying with Moore and Russell. That was the right place for him, but he missed. Perhaps next time, I mean next life... for him, not for me. For me this is enough, this is the last. But for him, at least once he needs to be in the company of a man like Gurdjieff or Chuang Tzu, Bodhidharma - but not Moore, Russell, not Whitehead. He was associating with these people, the wrong people. A right man in the company of wrong people, that's what destroyed him.
My experience is, in the right company even a wrong person becomes right, and vice-versa: in a wrong company, even a right person becomes wrong. But this only applies to unenlightened men, right or wrong, both. An enlightened person cannot be influenced. He can associate with anyone - Jesus with Magdalena, a prostitute; Buddha with a murderer, a murderer who had killed nine hundred and ninety-nine people. He had taken a vow to kill one thousand people, and he was going to kill Buddha too; that's how he came into contact with Buddha.
The murderer's name is not known. The name people gave to him was Angulimala, which means 'the man who wears a garland of fingers'. That was his way. He would kill a man, cut off his fingers and put them on his garland, just to keep count of the number of people he had killed. Only ten fingers were missing to make up the thousand; in other words only one man more.... Then Buddha appeared. He was just moving on that road from one village to another. Angulimala shouted, "Stop!"
Buddha said, "Great. That's what I have been telling people: Stop! But, my friend, who listens?"
Angulimala looked amazed: Is this man insane? And Buddha continued walking towards Angulimala. Angulimala again shouted, "Stop! It seems you don't know that I am a murderer,
and I have taken a vow to kill one thousand people. Even my own mother has stopped seeing me, because only one person is missing.... I will kill you... but you look so beautiful that if you stop and turn back I may not kill you."
Buddha said, "Forget about it. I have never turned back in my life, and as far as stopping is concerned, I stopped forty years ago; since then there is nobody left to move. And as far as killing me is concerned, you can do it anyway. Everything born is going to die."
Angulimala saw the man, fell at his feet, and was transformed. Angulimala could not change Buddha, Buddha changed Angulimala. Magdalena the prostitute could not change Jesus, but Jesus changed the woman.
So what I said is only applicable to so-called ordinary humanity, it is not applicable to those who are awakened. Wittgenstein can become awakened; he could have become awakened even in this life.
Alas, he associated with wrong company. But his book can be of great help to those who are really third-degree insane. If they can make any sense out of it, they will come back to sanity."
Absolutely insane glazing
Mythical fyp pull
Amazing explanation. Thanks a lot!
What does any of this mean I was a normal person three hours ago
man SubarashikiHibi really can mess a guy up. Thankfully I read White Album 2 after reading that one. WA2. was that last VN I ever read. Thankfully, and also sadly, life is too busy for me now to read anymore VNs. But I really wanted to read To Heart 2. If they ever translate Saturn or PS1 Tokimeki Memorial ill play those for sure regardless of free time.
The game underneath is iirc subahibi
Amazing job. Well done.
I'm just 22:49 deep here, but could the "objects" allude to a verifiable source of information that backs up (or not) states of affairs in the logical space, rendering facts true or false?
I'll suggest an allegory of objects being guesses, states being a box's lid and the facts the content of said box; your guess might or not be confirmed upon the opening, but the contents always remain the same.
Como es que 98mil personas clicamos en un video que junta a Ludwig Wittgenstein con anime???