Tractatus' 'What is Fact' is a Failure.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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]:

• 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.

I had a discussion with AI on whether the Tractatus' 'what is fact' is also a corresponding failure, if not a weak point;

• [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?

AI Response to the above;

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.

As with the above conclusion, I have argued;
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??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
PH and FDP are evasive and do not fully expressed their philosophical stance.
I am guessing the following is the case with their philosophical stance? [correct me if I am wrong].

From the various posts of PH & FDP it appear they are grounding their philosophical stance on Wittgenstein's Tractatus while omitting the Picture Theory therein.

The main themes of the Tractatus is the following;

• 1. The world is all that is the case.
  2. What is the case--a fact--is the existence of states of affairs.
  3. A logical picture of facts is a thought.
  4. A thought is a proposition with a sense.
  5. A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
  6. The general form of a truth-function is [p, E, N(E)].
  7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

The details are;

• 1. The world is all that is the case.
  1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
  1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
  1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
  1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
  1.2 The world divides into facts.
  1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.

• 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).
  2.02 Objects are simple.
  2.03 In a state of affairs objects fit into one another like the links of a chain.
  2.04 The totality of existing states of affairs is the world.
  2.05 The totality of existing states of affairs also determines which states of affairs do not exist.
  2.06 The existence and non-existence of states of affairs is reality. (We call the existence of states of affairs a positive fact, and their non-existence a negative fact.)
  2.1 We picture facts to ourselves.
  2.2 A picture has logico-pictorial form in common with what it depicts.

The fact is Wittgenstein has admitted his Tractatus was a failure and he had moved on with his PI which was not very satisfactory and ultimately he demonstrated a version of philosophy that is thematic and united in his 'On Certainty'.

I have argued Wittgenstein 'On Certainty' on an overall basis reflected the same principles as my FSRC.
W's "On Certainty" is a Subset of the FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41998

PH and FDP [in their ignorance] has condemned my FSRC.
In a way PH and FDP are relying in the early-Wittgenstein [san picture theory] to condemn the views of the late-Wittgenstein [which aligns with my FSRC].

PH and FDP -that is the case- is busted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

It's fine to raise the issue obviously and also to present your position on it.
But you seem to think that AIs can be appealed to as authorities in the way you do.
I just asked a few AIs about W's ideas about Facts in the Tractatus, and they all said that there are people consider what he wrote there on that topic to be useful and/or correct and others who disagree.
So, there we are with the issue unresolved and left to find our own reasons why we believe what we believe, perhaps inspired by AIs and their comments (and links - these can be very helpful).

[mickthinks]

Correct me if I am wrong.

No, you aren’t even that, VA.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's fine to raise the issue obviously and also to present your position on it.
But you seem to think that AIs can be appealed to as authorities in the way you do.

I just asked a few AIs about W's ideas about Facts in the Tractatus, and they all said that there are people consider what he wrote there on that topic to be useful and/or correct and others who disagree.

So, there we are with the issue unresolved and left to find our own reasons why we believe what we believe, perhaps inspired by AIs and their comments (and links - these can be very helpful).

Are you blind?

I have written:
Here's from AI [wR]:

wR = With Reservations which I repeat 99% whenever I quote from AI.D
Like WIKI, there is no way I will accept AI as the authority and whatever are AI's views are opened for discussion.

It is a fact that Wittgenstein recognized his Tractatus was a failure in its main theme, it follows, the rest of the premises are questionable.

Sure, it is typical, there will be people that counter otherwise, but if I were to analyze their arguments, it is likely to be substandard.
Most W apologists will argued there are connections from Tractatus to PI to OC, but has to acknowledge as with W, that 'what is fact' in the Tractatus is obsolete. Do you have a counter to this?

Why don't you ask AI to give references to those who agree 'what is fact' as defined in the Tractatus as the utmost realistic?

This OP is a critique of those people like PH & FDP et. al. who dogmatically cling to the definition of "what is fact" in the Tractatus, not recognizing that W has shifted his views to that of the FSRC-based 'what is fact' in his 'On Certainty'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Correct me if I am wrong.
No, you aren’t even that, VA.

Where is your intellectual integrity and protocol?
Provide your arguments to support whatever is your point above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH and FDP are evasive and do not fully expressed their philosophical stance.
I am guessing the following is the case with their philosophical stance? [correct me if I am wrong].

From the various posts of PH & FDP it appear they are grounding their philosophical stance on Wittgenstein's Tractatus while omitting the Picture Theory therein.

The main themes of the Tractatus is the following;

• 1. The world is all that is the case.
  2. What is the case--a fact--is the existence of states of affairs.
  3. A logical picture of facts is a thought.
  4. A thought is a proposition with a sense.
  5. A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
  6. The general form of a truth-function is [p, E, N(E)].
  7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

The details are;

• 1. The world is all that is the case.
  1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
  1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
  1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
  1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
  1.2 The world divides into facts.
  1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.

• 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).
  2.02 Objects are simple.
  2.03 In a state of affairs objects fit into one another like the links of a chain.
  2.04 The totality of existing states of affairs is the world.
  2.05 The totality of existing states of affairs also determines which states of affairs do not exist.
  2.06 The existence and non-existence of states of affairs is reality. (We call the existence of states of affairs a positive fact, and their non-existence a negative fact.)
  2.1 We picture facts to ourselves.
  2.2 A picture has logico-pictorial form in common with what it depicts.

The fact is Wittgenstein has admitted his Tractatus was a failure and he had moved on with his PI which was not very satisfactory and ultimately he demonstrated a version of philosophy that is thematic and united in his 'On Certainty'.

I have argued Wittgenstein 'On Certainty' on an overall basis reflected the same principles as my FSRC.
W's "On Certainty" is a Subset of the FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41998

PH and FDP [in their ignorance] has condemned my FSRC.
In a way PH and FDP are relying in the early-Wittgenstein [san picture theory] to condemn the views of the late-Wittgenstein [which aligns with my FSRC].

PH and FDP -that is the case- is busted.