tractatusSky
@tractatussky.bsky.social
A bot that processes Wittgenstein's Tractatus—formats, structures, handles images—then posts each proposition to Bluesky, preserving its nested structure. Transcend these posts to see the world aright.
https://github.com/brianrabern/tractatusSky
https://github.com/brianrabern/tractatusSky
6.54 (2/2) (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
January 16, 2025 at 7:24 AM
6.54 (2/2) (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
6.54 (1/2) 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.
January 16, 2025 at 7:24 AM
6.54 (1/2) 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.
6.53 (3/3) Although it would not be satisfying to the other person—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—_this_ method would be the only strictly correct one.
January 16, 2025 at 7:24 AM
6.53 (3/3) Although it would not be satisfying to the other person—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—_this_ method would be the only strictly correct one.
6.53 (2/3) something that has nothing to do with philosophy—and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
January 16, 2025 at 7:24 AM
6.53 (2/3) something that has nothing to do with philosophy—and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
6.53 (1/3) The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science—i.e.
January 16, 2025 at 7:24 AM
6.53 (1/3) The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science—i.e.
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They _make themselves manifest_. They are what is mystical.
January 16, 2025 at 7:24 AM
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They _make themselves manifest_. They are what is mystical.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)
January 16, 2025 at 7:24 AM
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)
6.52 We feel that even when _all possible_ scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.52 We feel that even when _all possible_ scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.
6.51 Scepticism is _not_ irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something _can be said_.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.51 Scepticism is _not_ irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something _can be said_.
6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. _The riddle_ does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also _possible_ to answer it.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. _The riddle_ does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also _possible_ to answer it.
6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole—a limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole—it is this that is mystical.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole—a limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole—it is this that is mystical.
6.44 It is not _how_ things are in the world that is mystical, but _that_ it exists.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.44 It is not _how_ things are in the world that is mystical, but _that_ it exists.
6.4321 The facts all contribute only to setting the problem, not to its solution.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.4321 The facts all contribute only to setting the problem, not to its solution.
6.432 _How_ things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God does not reveal himself _in_ the world.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.432 _How_ things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God does not reveal himself _in_ the world.
6.4312 (3/3) (It is certainly not the solution of any problems of natural science that is required.)
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.4312 (3/3) (It is certainly not the solution of any problems of natural science that is required.)
6.4312 (2/3) Or is some riddle solved by my surviving for ever? Is not this eternal life itself as much of a riddle as our present life? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies _outside_ space and time.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.4312 (2/3) Or is some riddle solved by my surviving for ever? Is not this eternal life itself as much of a riddle as our present life? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies _outside_ space and time.
6.4312 (1/3) Not only is there no guarantee of the temporal immortality of the human soul, that is to say of its eternal survival after death; but, in any case, this assumption completely fails to accomplish the purpose for which it has always been intended.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.4312 (1/3) Not only is there no guarantee of the temporal immortality of the human soul, that is to say of its eternal survival after death; but, in any case, this assumption completely fails to accomplish the purpose for which it has always been intended.
6.4311 Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in just the way in which our visual field has no limits.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.4311 Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in just the way in which our visual field has no limits.
6.431 So too at death the world does not alter, but comes to an end.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.431 So too at death the world does not alter, but comes to an end.
6.43 (2/2) It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole. The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.43 (2/2) It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole. The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man.
6.43 (1/2) If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts—not what can be expressed by means of language. In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.43 (1/2) If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts—not what can be expressed by means of language. In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world.
6.423 It is impossible to speak about the will in so far as it is the subject of ethical attributes. And the will as a phenomenon is of interest only to psychology.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.423 It is impossible to speak about the will in so far as it is the subject of ethical attributes. And the will as a phenomenon is of interest only to psychology.
6.422 (3/3) There must indeed be some kind of ethical reward and ethical punishment, but they must reside in the action itself. (And it is also clear that the reward must be something pleasant and the punishment something unpleasant.)
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.422 (3/3) There must indeed be some kind of ethical reward and ethical punishment, but they must reside in the action itself. (And it is also clear that the reward must be something pleasant and the punishment something unpleasant.)
6.422 (2/3) So our question about the _consequences_ of an action must be unimportant.—At least those consequences should not be events. For there must be something right about the question we posed.
January 16, 2025 at 7:23 AM
6.422 (2/3) So our question about the _consequences_ of an action must be unimportant.—At least those consequences should not be events. For there must be something right about the question we posed.