Banno

...and the fool appears. He wants the Twitter version, the answer to life, the universe and everything in 200 characters or less. He won't read, let a...

Thanks, Sam.

That would be an answer to "Tell me about something which has not be put into words." The question is, "Tell me about something which cannot be put in...

So the thread is divided between those who read an aphorism and those who read the Tractatus. Spoon feeding time: 1. The world is everything that is t...

That wasn't a criticism. Wittgenstein wrote a book called the Tractatus. You read one of the section headings and colluded that it was shallow. I enco...

Indeed.

That's not what was claimed. Where is this claim made?

You said it.

Think on that a bit. I've bolded the problematic word. In what way is the real world outside of language? Tell me about something which cannot be put ...

There's this game I sometimes set up... hang on... here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11547/bannos-game/p1 It'll be moved to the lounge a...

Yeah, it does. But yeah, lies to children.

Both and neither. It's a misleading juxtaposition.

Language isn't limited. As Searle pointed out, Anything that can be meant can be said. The title phrase is not placing a limit on language, so much as...

No; it's what can't be said. "Whereof on cannot speak..." And this is why it is vital to refer to the text.

Then forgive me if I don't play along.

There's your problem: "out there" vs "in here".

Something like that. The salient point in relation to the OP is that it is the really important stuff that can't be said. A shallow reading misses thi...

Given the OP, I want you to engage with the text. That would give some assurance of commitment. SO, give me some indication of having read the relevan...

I agree.

Who's that, then? Tell me about him.

That's a fair point. Ok, he might not have so thought.

See . The thing about ethics, and it's something that pisses philosophers off, is that it is not what you say, but what you do, that is of relevance.

I've no idea what you are asking.

Yep. Some folk feel a sort of existential angst - why should the mathematics of limits have a use in describing the movement of a cannon ball? Why sho...

Contra that, in the item I cited, there are mentions of empiricism and the example of the applicability of the mathematics of elasticity to engineerin...

Kudos for contextualising.

You are using the phrase somewhat differently to Wittgenstein.

Did you read it in context? It seems not. So try this: what is the first line of the Tractatus? I won't quote it, because it is important that you eng...

I so mean. But we call them assumptions.

Pretty much. ND consists in formation rules and a couple of rules of derivation - modus ponens in particular. No axioms. That's pivotal. Instead there...

Hmm. Can you consistently wish good luck to all the entrants? SO in so far as chance plays a part in the outcome, you are wishing that it not prefer o...

That was the point of the explorations into the foundations of maths that led to incompleteness and so on - to give maths the rigidity of logic, conce...

Need to take a break so we don't post over each other. Yes, ND is just deduction. But in ND, any theorem can be taken as axiomatic, to be discharged a...

Ah. So again another field explodes before us - Proof theory. I'll do some more reading. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theory-developme...

Too fast. Why? Is there a reason to think that natural deduction is not as powerful as axiomatisation? That is, while mathematicians do use axiomatic ...

Hmm. Your puzzlement has me puzzled, so I will try to articulate some presumptions I had made. Big picture stuff, so this will be lacking in detail......

Oh, sure. Logic is just another part of maths. The point being that nether logic nor maths can or need be derived from axioms. Indeed, in cases that i...

https://iep.utm.edu/nat-ded/

Oh - see edit. Lemmon vs. Copi. I started logic in a course using Lemmon, but changed Universities and wound up using an axiomatic approach (Hughes an...

Of course. I'm saying don't bother with axioms. Edit: so we use natural deduction rather than axiomatic definitions of completes and coherence. That i...

I intentionally left axioms out of my post. I've always been struck by the fact that what we select as our axioms is more or less conventional; we mig...

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51cxKdVheML._AC_SX679_.jpg There are folk who look at a Picaso and say "I could draw that". Picaso painted like a ...

This is a vast topic. The more I look in to it the more it grows. And it is difficult. But we might progress a little along the path by being clear wh...

Cheers. The contents of this thread has little to do with Wittgenstein. It's wrong-headed. Mad has not tried to understand, but instead is content to ...

In times of yore, there was a mystical text that did this. But some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legen...

Tell me, what do yo think the tractatus was? Small steps. At least read a tertiary text about him before you say anything else.

Meh. The thread never existed. This is a shared delusion.

Yes; that's what I said.

The reply has been set out before you, by @"StreetlightX", by @"Cuthbert" and by myself. But you have not been able to see it. Don't think, look. This...

...and some folk don't think Austin and Wittgenstein are about ethics. That was one of the best posts I've seen hereabouts.