How do I understand?

>>9618223
To really understand it, you need to have studied some Aristotelian logic, and to be familiar with both Frege and Russell's work upon which it is a sort of commentary, correction, and expansion.

I'll be honest that I did not pursue those things myself, and had only read Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations." I went to it out of curiosity about what he denied in his later writings, so my understanding is cursory. Read Russell's introduction, it's helpful.

Don't talk about things you don't understand.
In fact, don't talk at all.

>>9618461
>not using the spoiler

You ruined the ending anon

frege and russell are the essential prerequisites.

for frege, you should have some grounding in his philosophy of language (most importantly the articles 'on sense and reference,' 'function and concept,' 'function and object' and 'the thought,'), his philosophy of mathematics (the book 'foundations of arithmetic') and at least some understanding of his ideas in logic (most notably 'the basic laws of arithmetic' although it is by no means necessary to actually read the whole book)

for russell, the essential bits are 'on denoting' and his work with whitehead, 'principia mathematica.' his book 'the philosophy of logical atomism' is very helpful too because it was heavily influenced by wittgenstein during his tractatus period and contains some of the same ideas (though taken in a russellian direction that wittgenstein would ultimately reject)

if, understandably, you don't want to read principia mathematica and frege's basic laws, then you just need some introduction to symbolic logic up to and including quantification, with maybe a little bit of set theory as well

i disagree about needing to study aristotelian logic. wittgenstein never read aristotle (he even joked with his friends about being the only philosophy professor in the history of cambridge to have never read aristotle) and i don't think it will really help you with TLP. it might be worth studying if you want to understand logic as a field more generally, but it's mostly irrelevant to wittgenstein's work

>>9618223

I recommend a basic review of mathematical logic as we now understand it, and which ironically is partially based on the present work. The wiki on "truth functions", in particular, is both excellent and immediately pertinent. Also make sure that you understand combinations, sigma notation, and pascal's triangle in general. I'm serious. This will help you to understand the mathematical content of the work, at least, which is of course a significant chunk of it. The philosophical content is left to the rest.

The text comprises exactly 526 "utterances", which are capable of being read in several different orderings, despite having been presented in print at first, in such-and-such a way.

It's not essential but you should read Plato's "Cratylus".

File: IMG_2258.png (144KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 600x500px

>>9618751
>>9618702
>>9618518
>>9618456
>mfw I bought the book because it was short

>>9618518
I appreciate that, about the Aristotle. Honestly, I also was thinking of it as a sort of primer on logic in general.

Thanks for providing some specific titles :)

The world is everything that is the case and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent. Be edgy by insisting the last line is a efficiency you to the philosophy establishment.

* is an ef you