As Wittgenstein says and extol, Chapter-2 ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Previous Chapter Link: As Wittgenstein says and extol, Chapter-1

1.6: “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 the way in which our visual field has no limits.”

Moral of the Quote to me: Your “Being” to the existence is a true event, because you are living on it. The appearing world is a kernel reality where you are emerged from and celebrating the temporal existence. You are not eternal to your existence due to the rudiment nature of the world. The world is rudimentary with all of its decadence, alteration and transformation. Nothing could be stands here on permanent when you enclose it with and within the timeframe. Death is an event of time but life is timeless. Life form of any object is going to the alteration and getting new but an unknown transformation after the death. Experience of death could be true within the time-boundary but conversion of life is a timeless event.

tractatus-logico-philosophicus_6

Death is a temporal experience of distortion and displacement of things. That could be a human and be anything existed in the appearing world. What you are missing that the gigantic universe, which is bigger than the appearing world. Your visual sight is limited to grab this whole. You are limited and terminal within the form and duration but the universe is not terminal neither it is the slave of time. Time is timeless there and form is constantly getting new shape of existence.

When you think about this, you could not say that you are living here to get the experience of death. My friend, you are not dead at all. Your lifecell is constantly changing to a new shape and floating in the unbound river of this uncontrolled visual field. Time is meaningless there. My friend, do remember that you are deathless, because, the massive visual field is yet deathless.

1.7: “A tautology’s truth is certain, a proposition’s possible, a contradiction’s impossible.”

Moral of the Quote to me: First and second offering of the quote is correct on logical consequences. The hypothesis about tautology’s truth and proposition’s possible is an approval of your linguistic gestures. Tautology is certain but the tautological words are uncertain yet. The words are uncertain due to the expression of thoughts you deliver through the lingual arrangements. These words are bound to depend on the binary computation of your neuron cell and they are hysterical indeed.

Tautological words are not ramble and mystic. They are the part of your brain cell, where multiplication of signals could produce unwanted expression. When you think about something and taking a logical pathway to establish your thoughtful proposition, you do not know what would be come to the end. Your intention on “Think Logical and Proposed Logical” could be decisive but you are not the master of that decision. Your decisive proposition is a probable affirmation where you could not say that the proposition is certain!

tractatus-logico-philosophicus_7

You should have perhaps correct on your logical consequence and maybe not! Your effort perhaps delivers some tautological words instead of decisive proposition. The thoughtful lingual effort is not an assertion that you are correct on your thought and it is final. One of the most definitive propositions (with clear thoughts and logic) could be not avoiding the Shakespeare’s puzzle of “To be or not to be that is the question.”

The hypothesis is correct in that scene but the synthesis is a bitter negation of the hypothesis. Your word as if could make tautology and proposition then it is actually sinking into the contradiction. Words are dialectical. Playing with logic is a gambling of contradiction and dialectics. Contradiction of words is plausible than thinking of it impossible. Your expression and thoughts could be alive when you able to make contradiction through tautology’s truth and proposition’s possibilities.

1.8: “It is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is. Language disguises thought.”

Moral of the Quote to me: Validity of language is relative. Language exists because you are existed and if you are not existed then language does not exist there. You are the reason to the language and language is the reasoning for your existence. Language is rational when it is rationalizes you to the meaning of existence. Your relation with the linguistic arrangements is a material event rather than ethereal. However, the immediate question is raise over there that, “Why language exists with you?” It is tough to guess that why language exists and what will happen if it is not existed. The fact is that language existed for reasoning your feelings and thoughts. Language is a tool to you for delivering meaningful and logical words. It is a simple explanation of using language in human life.

tractatus-logico-philosophicus_8You are in trouble when your mind instigates you to answer the objective of language. What is the objective of language? Is it true that words are existed for meaning and logical expression? Science of language divided your brain cell into two parts. One for emotional and other is dedicated to deliver logical expression. It is perhaps true, but question is that why the language is bound to do this? What is the reason for doing such thing? Is it a fallacy, where your scientific thought is considering language as like that? The true philosophy of linguistic activities is unknown. The logic of language is a puzzle and perhaps it will not solve at future!

Continued to the next chapter …

As Wittgenstein says and extol, Chapter-3

Advertisements