Language and Logic according to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

This piece is the prerequisite to Thought and Language, written on Feb. 5, 2021, in which I assumed that human language is logic, even though an individual use of human language may not be always logical. Wittgenstein has it declared in his preface of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: The book deals with the problems of philosophy and shows, as I believe, that the method of formulating these problems rests on the misunderstanding of the logic of our language. I have made his point without an direct quote in my writing in Metaphysics, written on Feb. 1, 2021. This writing, plus the two, Metaphysics and Thought and Language, three pieces together, may provide a foundation to the human understanding; that’s my aim.

Human language is unique in this world because it is logic. Further, the levels of understanding of the logic in our language reflect our metaphysics. Wittgenstein had this point clear in his first philosophical treaty, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Let us look at them in details.

We make to ourselves pictures of facts. (2.1)
Facts are objective in the natural world. We use our sense and experience to describe facts. Pictures are apparatus to do so.

The picture represents the facts in logical space, the existence and nonexistence of atomic facts. (2.11)
The facts in logical space are the world. (1.13) The world divides into facts. (1.2)
Depending on whoever is picturing the facts in logical space, it may not always existence, such as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” The picture is a model of reality. (2.12) Yes, only if the picture is the facts in logical space. The picture consists in the fact that its elements are combined with one another in a definite way. (2.14) Yes, only if the picture is an atomic fact. What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts. (2) An atomic fact is a combination of objects (entities, things). (2.01) It is essential to a thing that it can be a constituent part of an atomic fact. (2.011)

In logic nothing is accidental: if a thing can occur in an atomic fact the possibility of that atomic fact must already be prejudged in the thing. (2.012) It would , so to speak, appear as an accident, when to a thing that could exist alone on its own account, subsequently a state of affairs could be made to fit. If things can occur in atomic facts, this possibility must already lie in them. (A logical entity cannot be merely possible. Logic treats of every possibility, and all possibilities are its facts.) Just as we cannot think of spatial objects at all apart from space, or temporal object apart from the possibility of its connection with other things. If I can think of a object in the context of an atomic fact, I cannot think of it apart from the possibility of this context. (2.0121)
In Facts and Opinions according to Wittgenstein, I have explained his statements, now repeating as follows.

That the sun will rise tomorrow, is a hypothesis; and that means that we do not know whether it will rise. (6.36311) In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are different. (Yogi Berra 1925-2015) To test whether a theory is true or not, only is it done in practice. When we know the truth that the sun rises everyday, we understand the logical necessity in nature—the rise of the sun generally. Specifically, we must see it at the predicted time and space for its rising. Before then, it is only the possibility of this context (2.0121) for that the sun will rise is not an essential thing to an atomic fact, (2.011) which has encompassed our knowledge of the sun system.

Again, I am trying to express the relation between language and logic to those who have themselves thought the thoughts already. It is therefore not a textbook, by repeating what Wittgenstein has said in his preface of the Tactutas.

Note:

To make my emphasis the quotes of Wittgenstein above in bold and italic are from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by C.K. Ogden in

Major works, Selected Philosophical Writings, Ludwig Wittgenstein, by HapperCollins Publishers, Copyright 2009

Thank you, Schaffner, for bring U.S. history to life

Old soldiers never die, they just fad away. Indeed, thanks to Michael A. Schaffner and his fellow re-en actors to bring old soldiers back to life. I am referring his column on July 23, 2021, Critical race theory helps me bring U.S. history to life. However, it is my citizen duty to point out his misconceptions in this column. According to Schaffner, misconceptions are resulted from pondering the question of "how to interpret a site connected with both enslavement and the Declaration of Independence.”

Misconception #1
Militiamen as the muscle of the 18th century white middle class, "equally ready to browbeat striking dock workers, despoil indigenous peoples and repress the first sign of resistance among the enslaved," which may suggest the practice of systemic racism. 

Misconception #2
"The truth about the United States is that we all should know enslavement was an unmitigated evil with toxic consequences to this day."

Misconception #3
Another truth about the United States is that "an 'independence' and 'republic' in which only a small number of White male property owner wielded power was rife with hypocrisy, violence and oppression."

To me Schaffner's concerns toward founding fathers handling enslavement/racism and the Declaration of Independence are his misconceptions toward the America’s Founding. I truly believed that America’s Founding brought the best government on the earth. As one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin said, "it is a republic, if you can keep it." It is in theory, the U.S. Constitution is the best foundation to build a shining city on a hill.

Let us look at more details in order to expose the three misconceptions listed above.

First of all, the Declaration of Independence provided the truths in the America’s Founding: the doctrine of Natural Rights and twenty-seven colonial grievances against the British government. Here I should specifically remind Schaffner of the founding document through quoting the grievance #27, "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions." This quote serves as my explanation toward his Misconception #1.

Secondly, let us read the most important America’s Founding document, the United States Constitution. In Article I, Section 2, regarding representatives and direct taxes, I quote them here, [Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.]" The fact was that thirteen colonies did not invent the enslavement, nor did they mention such "unmitigated evil". On the contrary, it seemed to me that our founding fathers had handled this "unmitigated evil" well by avoiding it.

Finally, in theory, Schaffner's "hypocrisy, violence and oppression" in Misconception #3 won't be standing firm with the above said; in other words, my explanation shall be done without further words, even if there was some white supremacists who practiced "hypocrisy, violence and oppression."

Culture, Sports, and Media

Growing up in China, my earliest exposure to a western cultural event was the annual Wimbledon Tournament. The article, “To Barty, triumph is a dream come true after Wimbledon victory over Pliskova, she gives a nod to idol Goolagong,” by the Washington Post writer Liz Clarke, July 11, 2021, has caught my eyes.

The news report starts with “The Wimbledon women’s final Saturday was a testament to the mental side of tennis, with neither Australia’s Ashleigh Barty nor the Czech Republic’s Karolina Pliskova able to produce at her best over the nearly two-hour contest.” What an interesting beginning! Sports are muscular memory contests with mental supports situationally, i.e., competitors’ dynamical responses in a game. Competitors are crucially important in sports events, including some sports without direct ones, such as high jumps arguably. The mental side of tennis provides us the best data to analyze the metaphysics of human beings.

There are several attractions upon reading of the article. Without a doubt, Wimbledon events are highly visible worldwide, and a winner of a final is a triumph. Who is Goolagong? How about Barty’s dream come true? It is culture, a racist culture. We should not avoid or deny it. Though, it is healthy to acknowledge the colorful world that the race issue is not a matter to sports. Neither is to anything in the world events.

Getting better at anything through the continuation of doing it is the key, years after years and generations after generations.

Let’s bring up George Will’s column two days ago, July 9, 2021, “Baseball is losing its entertainment value. It is time to change the rules.” His column is a perfect subject to analyze human progress in skills and mental abilities. According to George Will, improved technology has brought through the following changes in data: the pitches’ spin rates, the launch angles of batters’ swings, and particular batters’ tendencies on particular pitches and more, all of which support the point of his column—change the baseball rules.

Let us talk about genes passing through generations. Is the technology improvement of human performance encoded in genes? How are they passed on? How are they reported via media about scientific progress in research? The Wimbledon match between Pliskova and Barty has a few interesting aspects, not only is Barty an indigenous Australia, but also Karolina has an identical twin sister, who are in competitive tennis at a comparable level.

Studying sciences keeps us more informed about our past and present. It guides our future more importantly. My conclusion: human progress prevails.

Facts and Opinions according to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

The world is the totality of facts, not of things. (1.1)

This is because a fact is objective no matter who is describing it. Things are different from facts. It depends on who is perceiving a thing, whether whose senses have high sensitivity to the thing or not, and who has prior experience with the thing. For example, a person has a weight and a build. When I describe this person, I may say that she is heavy, and that she has an oversized build. The fact behind the thing that I just described is that the weight of the thing manifests gravity, a truth. The size of the thing hides the truth about space and time. Gravity is a truth. So are space and time. Gravity belongs to physics, and it is physical truth. Space and time belong to metaphysics, and they are metaphysical truths.

The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.(1.11)

The knowledge of the world is discovered by studying facts. As long as we keep studying all the facts, we, human kind, perpetually, years after years, generations after generations, will figure out all the truths behind the facts. As Isaac Newton (1643-1727) said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” The knowledge of the world is discovered accumulatively. By discovering truths behind the facts, we are able to understand the facts profoundly.

If there were a law of causality, it might run: “There are natural laws.” But that can clearly not be said: it shows itself. (6.36)

Natural laws are discovered not created. Once a natural law is discovered, it seems to us “it shows itself.” I assume here that a law of causality is a law of nature, using affirmative mood, rather than subjunctive one.

The process of induction is the process of assuming the simplest law that can be made to harmonize with our experience. (6.363)

The process of induction is a logical proof in metaphysical/theoretical activities. A theory is useless without putting in practice. Otherwise, it can harmonize with our experience if true.

This process, however, has no logical foundation but only a psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest course of events will really happen. (6.3631)

The logic in the process of induction lies in showing the logical impossibility.(6.375)

That the sun will rise tomorrow, is a hypothesis; and that means that we do not know whether it will rise. (6.36311)

In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are different. (Yogi Berra 1925-2015) To test whether a theory is true or not, only is it done in practice. When we know the truth that the sun rises everyday, we understand the logical necessity in nature—the rise of the sun generally. Specifically, we must see it at the predicted time and space for its rising. Before then, it is only the possibility of this context (2.0121) for that the sun will rise is not an essential thing to an atomic fact, (2.011) which has encompassed our knowledge of the sun system.

A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity. (6.37)

If things can occur in atomic facts, this possibility must already lie in them. Logic treats of every possibility, and all possibilities are its facts.(2.0121)

At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. (6.371)

Explanations without precise and quantitative measurements, i.e., appropriate proofs, are hypothetical, they could be a theory or a law of nature in the form of opinions. The precise and quantitative measurements are in practice. When laws of nature are facts not opinions, these facts are knowledge and determined in the real world.

The natural world is the real world, and the real world is the totality of facts. Behind facts are truths, and truths can be discovered and described by natural laws. These laws are subjective to testing and deterministic atomic facts when properly applied.

When Daniel Patrick Moynihan ( 1927-2003) said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts” ( see Moynihan’s axiom in my previous article on June 16, 2021) his own opinion has to be tested if it has truth in it and his own facts are things under each individual perceptions, which are not objective and do not belong to the totality of facts in the real world.

Note:

My quotes of Wittgenstein above in bold are from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by C.K. Ogden in

Major works, Selected Philosophical Writings, Ludwig Wittgenstein, by HapperCollins Publishers, Copyright 2009