What is, is. What isn't, still is. What is and isn't is what can be thought. Of what we cannot think, we must remain silent. You're looking for Truth like a drunk searching for keys under the streetlight. Why do you think it's there?
Give example of something we cannot think.
>>3
wut
>>2
A thing/object with no attributes.
>>1
Eriugena should supersede the latter's place.
>>5
Realistically, neither ended the colloquy.
>>6
Of course. Would you like to nominate someone else?
>>4
Pure Being has been contemplated by many philosophers.
You're wrong about Wittgenstein. The statement is "Of what we cannot speak, we must remain silent". The tractatus separates what can be spoken about and what can't. What can't be spoken about is called nonsense, but this "nonsense" is not our common appreciation of what is "nonsense". Wittgensteinian nonsense caracterize things that are not absolutely derivable from his logical system (Ethics and Aesthetics per exemple, are nonsense subjects because if you were asked to define the moral/aesthetical notion of "best" in the sentence 'It is best to not rob people' you should fail to explain it (derive it from) by "logical phenomenons")
You can think, if you want, about what is the best way to live your life, and you can think about art, but that's not the task of the philosopher because philosophy deals with meaningful things, that can be either true or either false. A statement can be meaningful and, consequently, either true or false, only and only if :
1. It describes a state of things that happened or is happening.
OR
2. It is a tautology.
Exemple 'the chair is red' is a meaningful statement from my actual pov, because there's a logical object that I call chair, that is red, that is situated at x,y,z coordinates.
The consequence of Wittgensteinian philosophy is that philosophy has no content but is a method of framing the activity of thinking.
Wittgenstein philosophy in the tractatus functions more or less like a mathematical demonstration of the impossibility of solvation of a problem.
Also, all of the content of the tractatus is nonsense, it is like a ladder that you need to throw when you reach the top.
I distrust anyone who claims to understand what anyone else thought via their written works.
The goal is to understand what the author did not understand.
“It is you who are unpoetical,” replied the poet Syme. “If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!”
>>8
It has. Through negation though i.e. via negativa/apophatic theology. Predicative conjectures are useless in the realm of Being.
I worship Maric Curie