Tractatus' 'What is Fact' is a Failure.
Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:31 am
I believe PH, FDP, et. al. have been clinging to the Tractatus version of 'what is fact'.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I have been arguing;
PH’s grounds his 'what is fact' on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Below are the supporting explanation;
Here's from AI [wR]:
W On Certainty is a Subset of the FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41998
PH & FDP, you have to think hard on clinging dogmatically to your illusory 'what is fact' essentially from W's failed Tractatus.
As such, you do not have grounds to refute my FSRC-ed 'what is fact' based on your illusory 'what is fact'.
Discuss??
Views??
Correct me if I am wrong.
I have been arguing;
PH’s grounds his 'what is fact' on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Below are the supporting explanation;
Here's from AI [wR]:
- Here's a breakdown of the reasons why he [W] came to consider it [Tractatus] a failure:
Paradoxical self-reference: The core idea of the Tractatus is the "picture theory of language," where propositions are like pictures of reality. However, the book itself is a proposition, leading to the question: can the theory explain its own existence? Wittgenstein himself saw this as a problem.
Limitations of language: The Tractatus proposes there are only "atomic facts" - basic, unbreakable statements - that form the foundation of meaning. Wittgenstein later came to believe this restricted view of language couldn't handle the complexities of how we actually use it.
Unsolved Problems: The Tractatus aimed to solve all philosophical problems by showing they were linguistic confusions. But Wittgenstein realized his framework couldn't handle certain issues, like the relationship between language and thought.
- [ME] In the Tractatus, it is written:
"2 What is the case — a fact — is the existence of states of affairs."
"2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things)."
My definition of 'what is fact' is this:
[WIKI] A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
In this case, what is fact is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], i.e. scientific facts are contingent upon the scientific FSK, economics fact by the economic FSK, and so on.
Since Wittgenstein considered the Tractatus a failure, does it mean its definition of what is the case, what is fact, states of affair are also a failure, i.e. a weak representation of what is reality?
As with the above conclusion, I have argued;AI wrote: You're right about Wittgenstein's complex relationship with the Tractatus and its ideas. Here's how your points on facts connect to his perspective:
Fact as States of Affairs: The Tractatus defines facts as the existence of "states of affairs," which are combinations of objects. This can be seen as a starting point for understanding the world through language. However, it doesn't consider the role of frameworks and systems of knowledge (FSKs) you mentioned.
Framework Dependence: Your definition highlights the dependence of facts on specific FSKs. This aligns with Wittgenstein's later thought, where he moved away from the idea of universal, atomic facts. He came to believe language shapes how we understand the world, and different frameworks might describe the same situation differently.
Weakness of Representation: In this light, the Tractatus definition could be seen as a limited representation. It doesn't capture the dynamic and context-dependent nature of facts within different FSKs.
Tractatus as a Starting Point: It provides a basic structure for understanding how language connects to the world.
Later Wittgenstein's Nuance: His later work builds on this, acknowledging the role of frameworks and how language shapes our understanding of facts.
Think of it like this: Imagine a map. The Tractatus offers a simplified map, showing basic landmarks. Wittgenstein's later work adds details, reflecting the influence of context and perspective on how we navigate the world.
In conclusion:
The Tractatus definition is a starting point, but not the whole picture. Wittgenstein's later work recognized the limitations of the initial framework and embraced the complexity of how facts are shaped by FSKs.
W On Certainty is a Subset of the FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41998
PH & FDP, you have to think hard on clinging dogmatically to your illusory 'what is fact' essentially from W's failed Tractatus.
As such, you do not have grounds to refute my FSRC-ed 'what is fact' based on your illusory 'what is fact'.
Discuss??
Views??