Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Considering the complexity of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, it is amazing that Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote it in the trenches during WWI. The only book published while he was alive, depicts a young philosopher's concern with the problem of the science. Although he later dismissed this work, Tractatus remains an important text in its field. Even though I don't agree with Wittgenstein nihilism, but his ideas in this book are important for the discussion about psychology, epistemology, ethics, language and philosophy.

This text is Wittgenstein's critique of philosophy 

"Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences.... Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity". 

In Tractatus Wittgenstein makes an equivalence of reason and symbolic logic - no errors. "Though can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically." This follows that if language follows the same rules of symbolic logic, reasoning would be error free.

Later, Wittgenstein establishes an analogy between language and pictures as representations of reality, "A picture is a model of reality". A reality that is comprised of facts, not things. The world is made of facts, events, not things. 

For the young Wittgenstein what counts is a thorough logical construct of propositions and operators, a general form of truth-function as he called it. 

"The proof of logical propositions consists in the following process: we produce them out of another logical proposition by successively applying certain operations that always generate further tautologies out of the initial ones." 

It doesn't need to be validated with reality. How could one validate a proposition with reality if we can't know reality? We just can check their logical soundness. The problem why we seem to make mistakes is that our languages are not solid enough. 

"In order to avoid such errors (one sign with multiple significations) we must make use of a sign-language that excludes them by not using the same sign for different symbols and not using in a superficially similar way signs that have different modes of signification: that is to say, a sign-language that is governed by logical grammar"

The conclusion is that we must thrive to use coherent, unequivocal language to represent reality. If sign-language is complete, all the world can be coded.

Did I understood Wittgenstein? I don't know. But as he says in his opening paragraph and close to the end:

"Perhaps this book will be understood only by someone who has himself already had the thoughts that are expressed in it."

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, trow away the ladder after he has climbed up it). He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright."

Later in life Wittgenstein seems to recognize and accept the limitations of language and gives up the ideal of such perfect code in exchange of an ordinary language philosophy. 

What we can all take from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is his very last proposition 

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." 

In today's world so many people pretend to be experts that we need more silence, more reflexion, more reason.

Time Machine

A few days ago I saw a video of an interview between Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers at the Independent women's forum may 16, 2017. In it Paglia discusses with Hoff Sommers the current debacle of feminism in western world. In the conversation Paglia makes reference to one of her favorite movies as teen, "The Time Machine (1960)". After watching the movie I decided to go for more and read the whole book.

H.G. Wells published The Time Machine in 1895, twenty years before Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Although not a formal scientific treaty but a science fiction novel, The Time Machine plot is rich in modern science ideas that popularized traveling in time.

As many book made movies there are important differences in the plot yet both share some of the key ideas.

In Time Machine, H. G. Wells narrates the story of a Time Traveler from the point of view of his curious friend, probably named Hillyer. The Time Traveler is an inventor and adventurer who has an interesting theory about time.

"There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along it."

For him time travel is possible if one moves in that dimension, thus no change of Space position. As an inventor he shows a scale prototype to his visitors and most of them leave skeptically, Hillyer curiosity makes him go back just to find that the Time Traveler had a full scale device he later used to travel to the future.

In a later scene the Time Traveler returns beaten and in rags finding his friends sitting at the dinner table. After having some food he start telling the story of what happened during his trip to the future.

The most relevant part, adapted by the movie, is his stay in C.E. 802,701 when he faces two human descendant species, the Eloi and the Morlocks. The later are ape like carnivorous who live Under-world, while the first are "beautiful and graceful creatures, but indescribably frail" who lived Upper-world without major worries but who end up being a sort of cattle for the Morlocks.

The Time Traveler was optimist before his trip "I had always anticipated that the people of the year Eight Hundred and Two Thousand odd would be incredibly in front of us in knowledge, art, everything." but after meeting the Eloi "For a moment I felt that I had built the Time Machine in vain." There are more similar references, like his poor preparation with tools thinking that in the future technology would be much better.

Wells description of the Eloi resembles the critique of Paglia and Hoff Sommers

"where population is balanced and abundant, much childbearing becomes an evil rather than a blessing to the state; where violence comes but rarely and offspring are secure, there is less necessity - indeed there is no necessity - for and efficient family, and the specialization of the sexes with reference of their children's needs disappears. We see some beginnings of thi even in our own time, and in this future age it was complete."

Although the Time Traveler was wrong in his theory his description of the dystopian future resembles what extreme groups are aiming for.

Should we be pessimists as the Time Traveler and Paglia or optimists as the narrator?

He, I know thought but cheerlessly of the Advancement of Mankind, and saw in the growing pile of civilization only a foolish heaping that must inevitably fall back upon and destroy its maker in the end. If that is so, it remains for us to live as though it were not so.

El Federalista (The Federalist Papers)

Thomas Jefferson pensaba que los niños debían aprender a leer con libros de Historia. El Federalista o “The Federalist Papers” cómo se les conoce en inglés son una colección de artículos publicados en New York previo a la ratificación de la nueva constitución de EUA en 1789, la mejor y más duradera constitución del mundo moderno. Escritos por James Madison, Alexander Hamilton y John Jay estos artículos explican con claridad el razonamiento detrás de la constitución. Dentro de los artículos los de Madison destacan por su claridad filosófica. Hamilton es hoy más popular y tiene una posición más inclinada a favorecer un gobierno federal fuerte. 

No todas las ideas prosperaron y no todas eran igual de buenas para establecer las bases de una República. Sin embargo, siguiendo el consejo de Jefferson, El Federalista es una lectura obligada hoy que muchos de los valores que la Constitución defienden se han puesto en duda y tergiversado. 

Un buen cierre de la lectura sería la advertencia de Benjamin Franklin cuando le preguntaron que habían hecho “una República si la pueden conservar”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Thomas Jefferson thought that kids should learn to read reading History books. The Federalist Papers is a collection of articles published in a New York newspaper before the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789, the best and longer lived constitution in the modern world. Written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay this columns explain with clarity the rationale behind the Constitution. Within the articles, Madison's outstand thanks to his philosophical clarity. Hamilton is currently the most popular of the three and has a position more incline in favor of a strong central government.

Not all the proposals thrived and not all were equally good to set the foundation of a Republic. However, following Jefferson's advice, The Federalist Papers are a must read today that many of the values that the Constitution defend are questioned and distorted.

A good closing for the book would be Benjamin Franklin's answer when he was inquired of what they did "A Republic if you can keep"