Exactly What Is Tractatus?

[AnssiH]

Yes, it is a wierd concept, isn't it? No matter how many people have discussed "the map and the territory", you keep assuming that nobody except you and Dick get the point of it. What strikes me even weirder here is you considering it "knowable" when you usually regard it as unknowable.

 

It strikes me odd that you would say that. If you understand the point of "map and the territory" (or noumena) - which I suppose you do well enough - then you should also understand why I phrased it the way I did. I can't say "...to make a separation between our mental representation and nothing...". To paraphrase Kant; even though we can't know things in themselves, we can't put ourselves into the position of thinking there is appearance without nothing.

 

I.e, if you understand the concept of noumena, then you should understand in what sense it is "knowable" and in what sense it is "unknowable", and that should tell you that when I say "unknowable", I'm referring to the terminology issues. And when I refer to "knowable", I'm referring to something behind the terminology, which is whatever it is that I cannot refer to without some man-made terminology.

 

Isn't that exactly why it is a "weird concept"; it is a reference to something that cannot be referenced per se.

 

Now I'm fully with you in that this is very cumbersome topic to discuss, it sort of already requires a strong understanding from all participants, plus it requires that they are able to align their terminologies to match each others. Just the fact that the exact same thing can be referred to as "knowable" or "unknowable" depending on subtleties in the context, should tell everyone how tricky this can be. The benefit I had with DD was that our terminologies were already closely aligned.

 

Actually I talked about both opposite cases, such as you thinking I misunderstand and/or disagree with things just because you don't follow points that I make about them.

 

It was quite obvious to me that you meant both cases, since you explicitly referred to both cases. My comment did not mean "I think this is the only thing you were saying". I hope you would follow what I'm saying and so on...

 

Also, if I respond to something you say with an explanation, that doesn't always mean I'm disagreeing. Sometimes I'm just phrasing what I'm thinking so you can check if it's what you meant. That was the case with my previous post.

 

Eh, you know these kinds of "I meant that you meant that I meant" discussions can get very complicated but let me just say that I often get exactly that same feeling from you, that you assume too much into what I'm supposedly saying and thinking about your understanding.

 

You especially draw this conclusion when I explicitly disagree with non sequitur conclusions that you draw from things which I do understand and agree with.

 

I didn't make any comment about your disagreement of something I had said, because I could not figure out what it was that you were disagreeing with exactly, and decided it was probably not very relevant. But now I'm getting interested, so if you won't mind, could you please tell me explicitly what it is that you disagree with, when you said;

 

"The second part is clearer, at least it makes sense with the help of past exchanges, even though I disagree that it follows logically as a conclusion."

 

I don't know what you meant by "second part" (or the "first part"), and what is the "logical conclusion" that would not follow, and from what it would not follow?

 

That's why it is so tiring when you doggedly repeat these things instead of examining the consequentiality which I criticize; that, along with real life concerns, is why I just had to keep out of here for quite a while.

 

I can fully empathize with that. If you have time, let's see if you manage to explain to me clearly, what is your criticism. If you do, I'll be happy to respond the best way I can.

 

So long as your effort goes none past that paradigm, even in communicating with other people, you will continue to fail in communicating. The thing is that, here, you were being vastly reductive concerning your doctrine, you are missapplying it. That isn't the way to distinguish whether someone misunderstands you, you need to pay more attention to whether you misunderstand them. It's like somebody playing chess and supposing they'll win because the opponent's move wasn't within their expectations. :doh: You should try instead to get what you're missing.

 

I don't think this criticism is completely valid, I feel that I am putting very much effort in trying to understand what people are thinking and saying. I don't think it's meaningful to complain that I am "misapplying my doctrine", since all I can do is exactly the same as everybody else can do; operate according to whatever expectations I find most likely.

 

Other people's views aren't quite like Kant's inherently unknowable ding-an-sich, it is always possible (and very useful) to put more effort into understanding them than into accusing them of misunderstanding you.

 

Well I'm very sorry, but in my mind that comment reflects a simple misunderstanding about DD's argument. That is because his argument is not a philosophical stance, and it is related to Kant's noumena only in the sense that that is one possible way to communicate what his argument actually is.

 

Sure, it can be useful to understand other views in various things, but there's nothing there that could possibly be relevant to understanding this topic. Let me give a simple analogy; if I make the argument "1 + 1 = 2 by definition", someone might argue "yes but maybe there are other definitions, according to which 1 + 1 is not 2".

 

But the original argument was not whether or not "1 + 1 = 2" is absolutely true in all possible definitions. It was, that such and such definitions for symbols "1", "1", "+" and "2", will inevitably lead to the validity of the relationship "1 + 1 = 2".

 

Exactly like such and such definition of an explanation, will inevitably lead to the validity of certain relationships, that we can express by the means of mathematical logic (that expression in itself is of course also an arbitrary terminology to express those relationships, i,e. just a particular form of "map". The universal validity of the relationships themselves is the important part).

 

Whatever philosophical view any reader is holding, as long as that view does not depend on undefendable assumptions, it should always be possible to find a valid translation from DD's terminology to their terminology, and then it should be possible for them to find his argument either explicitly valid, or explicitly invalid. There's nothing there "to believe", and there's nothing there that is related to holding a particular philosophy, except that certain philosophies may be already better aligned to his language in terms of their terminology.

 

Just as an real example about the map vs, territory, some people actually start to argue that it is only a belief, that the map is not the territory. Of course it is possible that the map is exactly like the territory, but the point of the argument is exactly that there is absolutely no way to verify. As long as the statement "the map is exactly like the territory" fits into the definition of "a belief", where the definition of a belief is "something you can't be sure of", then "we can never be sure that the map is exactly like the territory" is to be taken as a fact.

 

To say that other philosophies might not think so, is to either state a simple logical inconsistency, or to respond in a different terminology. (Of course there can exist self-coherent terminologies in which someone might say the map vs, territory is not a fact, but he would be referring to something different, than that simple logical relationship outlined above)

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

Eh, you know these kinds of "I meant that you meant that I meant" discussions can get very complicated

Exactly, and I found this post of yours illogical enough, for the moment. We have so often exchanged the same accusations against each other and it gets exactly nowhere, so I won't waste any more of my time on it.

[Doctordick]

Say, Dick, after all this hoo doo, did you at least figure out that tractatus is the Latin word for treatise?

No! As a matter of fact I never even dawned on me to even think about what the word meant; all I was concerned with was what the paper said. The actual title of the thing is kind of a side issue isn't it? But thanks for your concern.

 

And Craig, I found your post to be very educating. One of my problems is that I really do not understand what it is that makes what I say so hard for people to grasp and I think perhaps you have clarified some things for me. I always attributed Anssi's success to the fact that he essentially had already confronted the problem I was solving. I still think there is a lot of truth to that impression but perhaps others problems are due to some other aspects of my presentation. In some respects, it may be that the things that I assumed everyone understood and the things I thought needed explanation were both erroneous perceptions on my part.

 

And yes, nonsense is indeed relative. And it has a lot to do with language itself; the very issue central to the proof of the need for an explanation to be a solution to my fundamental equation.

 

Though DD is writing in English, which lawcat, I, and the many others who deem his writing “nonsense” understand, he’s writing about ideas that are, essentially, in other languages – which, not understanding them well enough, I won’t attempt to name here.

Yes, it is the idea as to what I am doing which is being misunderstood and, having the wrong goal in mind, the steps I take seem to be total nonsense to most everyone.

 

I honestly wish I could better understand DDs writing. I’ve a BS in Math that included a modicum of modern physics, and find that I can read with good comprehension about 25% of the articles in math and physics journals without review or research.

The math I use is pretty well on a high school level so I really doubt you would have any trouble following it if you understood what I was doing. I am going to try and restate my earlier post, “Laying out the representation to be solved” in order to make the goal and the relevant notation more understandable. As it stands, I don't think the old thread is of value to anyone and, if the forum authorities want to delete the entire thread, I would not be bothered.

 

I often consider trying to reread DD’s posts (which go back about 6 years here at hypography) as I would a journal article that interests me but I don’t understand, trying to acquire the language to “get it”, but conclude each time that such an understanding wouldn’t apply enough to my favorite activities, which are primarily in the fields of number theory and AI, to justify spending the time.

Let me first rewrite that opening post as a new thread and then you take a look and tell me what you think. By the way, I think it is an eye opening issue when it comes to AI. If I were young, I would be looking into applying what I have discovered to that very issue. I think understanding the consequences of my fundamental equation is critical to implementing true AI.

 

While I sympathize with how frustrating communication difficulties can be, I think everybody’s discussing in good faith here, with the goal of understanding and being understood. Your statement is hyperbole, and ridicules. Such statement serve only to establish “me good – you bad” hierarchies, which we seek to avoid here at hypography.

I wouldn't argue with that at all and I think Anssi does considerably better than I do. But of course I am a grumpy old man with little patience so please forgive me, I don't really intend to be rude.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

The actual title of the thing is kind of a side issue isn't it?

I sure couldn't deny that, so far, it has really seemed so. I was just wondering why you chose that title and then proceeded to discuss everything except it.

Might as well close the thread for being off topic, eh?