Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Routledge Classics)

I consider this book to be very worth reading because it is associated with an extremely important period in philosophy following the work of Frege, Russell and Whitehead. I found it to be very opaque. Wittgenstein seemed to be struggling with ideas he encountered while considering the work of Frege, Russell and Whitehead. The preface by Russell showed that he considered the work to be very significant. I intend to study more about this, and will probably revise this review later. For now, I would recommend reading the Tractatus, but I did not understand it very well.I think that a primary aim of Wittgenstein in the Tractatus was to address Russell's paradox and other problems of the "language" of logic, as being developed by Frege, Russell and Whitehead at that time. This led him into deep waters with respect to the mysteries of language, and a seeming necessity to set limits, even if these limits were somewhat arbitrary. Certainly some of his insights in this regard were highly penetrating. In particular, he viewed transgressing limits where truth could be adequately assessed as entering a realm of nonsense. I feel that had Gödel's work been available at the time, Wittgenstein might have thought somewhat differently about the limits he perceived. On the other hand, Wittgenstein ignored this work later in the more mature phases of his thinking. I came away from the Tractatus feeling that while it is still of great importance, especially as it was at a historical nexus in the evolution of logic, and displays some profound insights, time has somewhat passed it by.

This book was written years before any form of programmable computer was around. Decades before the first digital computer was devised, Wittgenstein wrote this book as a dissertation thesis to Bertrand Russell, I would assume to show him the first sample of human written code.Arguably, this is the first computer code written to be an abstract sample similar to codes to be written many years ahead, to be parsed by other human logicians. The reader should not try to understand every proposition in it, as it is. The reason the book was written is to show that it is possible to program humans (or machines) by means of a written text.

Good copy. A sublime book, well-translated. Forceful argument laden with just enough mythopoeticism to make sense

Originally published in 1921 Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is arguably the most influential piece of twentieth century philosophical writing. This edition contains the well respected 1961 Pears and McGuinness translation as well as the introduction to the original English edition by Bertrand Russell. I offer the following comments for potential readers.Despite its unquestioned historical significance the Tractatus is not necessarily a good entry point into Wittgenstein's thought. Arguably, if one were to read it not aware of the context within it which it was written it might seem pedantic and tedious - it is largely focused on addressing logico-linguistic questions prevalent at the outset of the twentieth century. From my perspective, an understanding of Frege and Russell is essential to appreciating the Tractatus. In particular it is important to have an appreciation for Frege's notions of concept, and his views on sense and reference; Whereas, Russell's approach to names and descriptions is also important.Although I appreciate Wittgenstein's work in the fields of language and logic I think his influence on modern philosophy has not been entirely positive. For instance it could be argued that the Logical-Positivist movement stemming from Wittgenstein's early work steered philosophical discussion into and sterile and uninteresting period where large metaphysical questions were deemed out of bonds (undoubtedly some would consider this a good thing).Overall, the Tractatus is a classic in modern philosophy - an important read for all serious students. For non-Wittgenstein enthusiasts, however, it can be a difficult read in early twentieth century analytic philosophy.

Wittgenstein changed his views after he wrote the Tractatus and rejected the conclusions found in it. What is wonderful about the book is the experience of seeing how a great philosopher explores philosophical questions. If you read the book uncritically enough times that you understand what is being said then you will gain a tool set for handling ideas that few possess.

I would not suggest reading this one without a group to talk things through, but he is brilliant! Count on reading every page nearly 20 times.

This book is the reason of my happiness this last two weeks.

２０世紀初頭における哲学界の寵児であったヴィトゲンシュタインの作品である。潮流に位置付ければ論理実証学派の先駆けとなった存在として評し得ようが、自ら恃むところの多い青年哲学者の、若く清冽な議論が簡潔に展開される内容は、まことに小気味が良い。知力と反骨精神で、一刀両断する論じぶりは、特に若い哲学学徒にとっての魅力に溢れる著作である。

The tractatus will give you a new structural framework to tack your observations upon. It really offers a new idea of how the complexity of the world could be broken down and organized. Unfortunately this scaffolding is far from all encompassing. Wittgenstein himself rejected his tractatus at a later time in his life and work, however there are still many tools to be discerned and adopted from this type of approach.

This is my latest collection. I wish I had this fifty years ago when I was gifted a copy of The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant.However, there was no mention of Wittgenstein in Durrant's Story as Tractatus came into the public domain a little later than Will first published his.India calls itself a republic, but still Indians, in general, are not conversant with its ideas expounded in Greek Philosophy through modern times. It is high time we give importance to epistemology in our school curriculums, and to enable the study we need a collection of books epitomizing western philosophy. Can Amazon.com come out with a package of books(print or digital) to be added to each school library in the country in this regard.

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.