Wittgenstein's Tractatus - Video 1 (English) - Preface & 1-1.21

[@konradheumann8342]

This is an EXCELLENT video, Dr. Gijsbers. Thank you so much for making it. I really enjoy your attention to detail. You do a great job unpacking this deceptively "simple" text! Weiter so!

[@pxp175]

You have the best explanation of the tractatus in KZbin! You're a great teacher as well. Much appreciated.

[@rckyclnshrt4169]

this was exactly the video series i was looking for, appreciate you putting this knowledge out here for people!

[@cauneacelisalola3932]

I love this series of videos. My second time watching them! I would comment that maybe Wittgenstein says that the "Truth" in this book is unassailable because he is in FACT only talking (mostly) about things that CAN be said, so that can OBTAIN. So, I think it's not so much an arrogant claim, but rather a disclosure that he is only going to talk about things that obtain, so his propositions are certain to be true.

[@disorderinprogress9749]

Alright! I followed Victor's Rorty CIS video series some years ago and loved it! Tme to delve into the Tractatus, here we go!

[@stanmallison5131]

OMG thank you. Love your analysis - and currently in Sluga's Tractatus graduate seminar - couldn't be happier to see this now

[@JeffRebornNow]

Kudos, Victor, on your new translation. If you've ever watched the Bryan Magee videos here on KZbin, where he discusses -- in an intimate tête-à-tête with an eminent philosopher of the day -- various historical philosophers and the problems they tackled, you'd have run across two programs in the series where he discusses the early and late philosophies of Wittgenstein. These two programs are excellent (especially for the beginner), and in one of them he expresses how beautiful and succinct Wittgenstein's prose-aphorisms are in that Tractatus. He calls them "hauntingly beautiful." Did you find this to be true? In your translation were you cognizant of the beauty of Wittgenstein's prose and did you try at all to bring it across in Dutch?

[@asdasvelet6243]

i just discovered your playlists! they're amazing keep up the good work!

[@aleksandravicus]

This is great example to every PHP lecturer how Wittgenstein should be taught! Our culture is ridden with unthinkable notions, such as God, I, Mind, Death and etc. which is cause of all the confusion not only in Philosophy. And Wittgenstein is great at explaining how people can write, imagine and think that 2+2=5, yet this is unthinkable, and simply a mistake in use of language. Nevertheless, it's very bizarre in how can our sciences, culture and inter-personal relationship work being based on mistaken use of language. In that we erroneously understand the way things really are, and behave on this erroneous understanding. And things still seem to work in one or the other way. Even the mistaken use of language does the work...

[@clumsydad7158]

Although Witt himself dismissed the Tractatus later in life as nonsensical. Meaning that although there are logical concepts within, in total it does not explain language. Language is unexplainable in any universal way. But yes, I suppose it does dissect how weak and fallible our language yet is. It's a fascinating subject, but as we as humans are fallible emotional-rational, mind-body messes I suppose it would be ridiculous to think our language would be sensible and transparent. We are as ambiguous and murky as the universe itself, at least inasmuch as we understand each of those subjects.

[@aleksandravicus]

@@clumsydad7158 Yes, that's the reason everything looks so contradictory. If our reality was uniform, then there would be no place for mistake. Impossible to think, act mistakenly. Hence, if that what is not real, truth, logical is still possible in our universe. It most likely points to the conclusion we live in multi-dimensional reality (multi universe). A murky bundle made of various separate realities...

[@pxp175]

Wittgenstein seems to be concerned mainly with clearaty, and would have us be silent when our thoughts reach a rather basic level of abstractions. I'd say that part of being human is to be unclear and use concepts like God or infinity and have a rather confused disposition. In analytical matters, we should have total clarity and 2+2 should always be 4, but this is trivial. Philosophy is different, and one could argue that holding ideas like God or infinity can yield progress and love and art, more that clearaty can.

[@edgelady_]

You deserve some kind of award for this.

[@Caligulahahah]

YES!!! My favourite YT philosopher presenting my favourite philosopher! so looking forward to this!!

[@philipvlnst]

I just love your videos. Makes it easier to understand the philosophers you lecture. In this case, I have struggled with Wittgenstein for some time, and you have helped clarify some points (I don't think anyone in this world can fully say that he/she understands everything about Wittgenstein.

[@alexislou9404]

I'm thrilled to have found you. I'm fascinated with Wittgenstein and want to understand in a deeper way.

[@Bob-il4kk]

As many have said before me: These explanations are brilliant, thank you very much! I have not been through all the comments in the series, so you might have already answered the question I'm about to ask, and if that is the case (no pun intended), I apologize. What do you think about the Tractatus English translation made by the Gutenberg Project ?

[@Matthew-pq4sy]

Thank you for this! I have a graduate degree in political theory. Even with my education in philosophy, I've always considered the Tractatus to be "over my head." This video is very helpful. I'm going to watch the series and try to approach the Tractatus with a new understanding. Thanks!

[@buckets3628]

Such a pleasant video so far. Look forward to watching all of these alongside my reading thank you. I noticed u have only covered up to 3.5 as of a year ago, that’s okay as I expect I will be watching many of your videos new and old!!

[@genghisthegreat2034]

Excellent explanation of ' logical space ' and ' independence of facts '

[@farazkhalid4362]

Awesome work as usual, professor

[@happyboy2323]

Thank you! Will you teach philosophical investigations?

[@jonathanjonsson9205]

Amazing news! I loved your series on the Critique of Pure Reason and have recently started reading Wittgenstein, I was hoping for you to guide me through it like you did with Kant - and the universe delivers! Maybe Leibniz was right after all.

[@VictorGijsbers]

Might take me a while to get through the entire text, though. 😉

[@jonathanjonsson9205]

@@VictorGijsbers If you ever get tired, you can release a video called "Tractatus - the remainder of the book" that is just a graphic saying "darüber muß ich schweigen".

[@anasfk]

thank you for much more making these videos available...very well explained!

[@animant8811]

This was amazingly beautiful and useful. Thank you very much. I do really hope that you finish this series as soon as possible because I have started reading the book just this week and I do not think that I can finish it alone. Especially after this very well made video.

[@DavitVadatchkoria]

Hello Victor, Good job! do u have alike video about philosophical investigations ?

[@militaryandemergencyservic3286]

Really helpful video - many thanks indeed! I like how 'things in themselves' (to quote Kant) aren't even considered at all important ON THEIR OWN - (and I suppose how 'consciousness of self' (to quote Hegel) is also 'only valid once we have understood Wittgenstein's explanation of the prime importance of how things 'hang together'. I think all philosophers bypassed this before Witt. As a result, they had, in a sense, a fundamentally flawed philosophy; whatever their philosophy was. But maybe not - maybe it doesn't matter too much whether they thought much or even at all about it.

[@Lucien_Tabaret]

a very enjoyable and instructive lesson, merci

[@arturgrygierczyk5636]

A personal question to Victor Gijsberg: Did translating the book to Dutch provided you with a better or different understanding of the Tractatus as you deeply approached Wittgenstein’s thoughts from different languages?

[@ScarlettGreen-w8b]

When I heard about the book, I realized that I had already thought about this, that's why I'm going to read the book.

[@KariFurey]

I really enjoyed this. Thank you for breaking it down so eloquently. Wow you teach in Leiden, I was there last year and visited the Spinoza museum. Descartes taught in Leiden. Very cool.

[@stanislavnikolskiy6122]

What a great job! Thank you so much, professor!👏🏻🙏🏻

[@sleepingforever9122]

Why can't we simply think of logical space as a space where every every point (point being facts here) can take one of the two values ,i.e., True or False (like in 2D space points can take 2 integers from an infinite set of integers). "The Facts in logical spaces are the world" would then mean that if we put any possible fact in logical space, i.e., assign the value of True or False to the possible facts we will get the totality of facts. This explanation seems more consistent because in the previous point Wittgenstein mentions that the totality of facts determines both what is the case and what is not the case. Please share your thoughts if you feel any discrepancy in this explanation

[@MV-vv7sg]

Probably my favroute participation of Nietzsche in philosophy ;).

[@davidpeterson9902]

Very helpful thanks

[@robocop30301]

Wow this is great stuff! Very much appreciated!

[@Nicole-pf1qp]

You are so awesome!!! ❤

[@jungblutjm]

Amazing! Thank you!

[@spaceofreasons]

You say: the numbering system is weird. You ask: where does 2.01 come in… [?] I understand he does not use 1.01 but for the rest of the book he will use 2.01 and 3.01 and so on. Good question but Mr. Wittgenstein made it clear we must read the whole book before making sense of it. Better question might be why does not he use 1.01 if we want to consider your point which seems trivial. Will you explain further?

[@aishpriyakaur5906]

I am from India, and I would like to pursue my research under you, if possible.

[@raginipiplani]

Very well explained 🫰

[@voralom494]

Long time no see you!

[@yderelio]

Thank you! 🙏🏻💃🏻🧿🍀

[@infraherald7449]

What should I assume "a thing" constitutes? Could "logical space" be interpreted as anywhere physics is happening/can happen? "The world" is already such a limited term it seems to me, which I'm already stuck at!

[@infraherald7449]

Do I have to assume a fact is not "a thing" in order to achieve a cogent understanding of the text, in other words? The only thing I really understand about Wittgenstein's thinking is that I indeed misunderstand every individual's language.

[@pxp175]

My understanding is that logical space is all the possible configuration of "things" with all of their possible relationships to each other. The logical part steams from the idea that all the relations have to be logical, outhouse they can't exits in reality. An example of logical can be: in accordance with the law of gravity, or ti be of a certain color, but not: "in 7 places at one time", or "with a salty temperature".

[@jeremya4468]

First. Thank you for this video 🙏🏻

[@ДанилаГалечьян]

thanx, great video, very helpful!

[@meowthedog]

The objection about memory is not trivial. The meanings - the actual commonly accepted "dictionary" meanings - of words do demonstrably change over time. So not just individual speakers but speaker communities as a whole do have a faulty memory. If the substance of the objection is that shifts in meaning make it impossible to establish stable truth conditions, then natural language in general is demonstrably faulty.

[@willieluncheonette5843]

" 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."

[@louisellenross9915]

Thanks!

[@KariFurey]

I wrote a poem about Wittgenstein. If you have the time sometime to review and let me know your thoughts, I’d appreciate it.

[@JohnnieWalkerGreen]

Is this a joke? Nope! Therefore is this serious 😁?

[@MAXSHM]

Thank you very much professor 🙏 ❤

[@claudioavendano7292]

For me the a difficult aspect is understanding what a case is .... in logic, especially as applied in mathematics, concept A is a special case or specialization of concept B precisely if every instance of A is also an instance of B but not vice versa, or equivalently, if B is a generalization of A. A limiting case is a type of special case which is arrived at by taking some aspect of the concept to the extreme of what is permitted in the general case. A degenerate case is a special case which is in some way qualitatively different from almost all of the cases allowed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_case I understand a case as a sub set used to prove a larger set.

[@pxp175]

It looks to me like you are using set theory as a representation of the ontological assertion "The world is everything that is the case". I am not sure that set theory is the best way to go for this, even though Wittgenstein does use set theory later as examples of the logic of sentences.

[@claudioavendano7292]

​@@pxp175 I believe, I suppose by faith, that infinites go in both directions, that the Plank length is not a limit and the ends of the universe are only because we can not see further. I believe that evolution comes from entropy, and that although our math is insufficient to do so, evolution can be described mathematically. Therefore since we are dealing with infinite sets when we are describing anything, including logic, we are in fact using set theory when we talk about anything. I suppose that is an ontological assertion.