Referenzen

„In TLP 5.61 it is missing: "Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits..." These limits of logic and of the world are fixed as ranges of values of the propositional variable "Φx" (of substance); but this variable does not at the same time give its values (the OBJECTS, expressions, significant propositions), since what is missing is the application, the linguistic act, in which it is first decided "what elementary propositions there are." (TLP 5.557) This is confirmed by the continuation of TLP 5.61: "...So we cannot say in logic, 'The world has this in it, and this, but not that.' For that would appear to presuppose that we were excluding certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case, since it would require that logic should go beyond the limits of the world; for only in that way could it view those limits from the other side as well..." Since logic without application would be empty, and since a SUBJECT (the self) is presupposed …"

„If both objects (or names) and facts (or true propositions) have nothing directly to do with logic – the former concern the application of logic (cf. TLP 5.557), the latter the comparison of the proposition with reality (cf."

„Formalization is reflection on language; in this respect reflection is not quite so "forbidden" in the TLP as is often assumed; nor is it the always already presupposed "positive use of language" that makes reflection on language superfluous in the TLP – for otherwise the TLP's critique-of-sense claim would fall away: admittedly, however, the (reflexive) results of formalization cannot be represented in terms of content; there is no *explicable reflection* in the TLP; formalizing reflection on language can only articulate itself by showing, because it is reflection on the application of language, which means: if one were to represent the results of reflection, language would be applied in doing so; but *this* application could collide with the application represented reflexively (cf. TLP 5.557)."

„It is prior to the question 'How?', not prior to the question 'What?'" (TLP 5.552) And the "What", i.e. "what elementary propositions there are" (TLP 5.557), which means at the same time what OBJECTS there "are" (cf."

„In the system of the TLP such "propositions" are dissolved: they attempt to *say* what *shows itself*. This is unsayable because it concerns the application of logic, and "what belongs to its application, logic cannot anticipate" (TLP 5.557), since otherwise it would "clash" with its application (ibid.), and this would result in an *explicit circularity* (i.e."

„In all three cases what is involved are formal properties which show themselves and whose explication yields nonsense. In TLP 5.557 a fundamental prohibition of self-reference is pronounced with regard to the *representation of logic*: "The *application* of logic decides what elementary propositions there are."

„T-4.12 u.ö.) Gegen die Auffassung, wonach der Traktat von einer vorgegebenen Wirklichkeit an sich ausgehe (also eine dem Radikalen Konstruktivismus diametral entgegengesetzte Position vertrete), sprechen eine Reihe von Sätzen, in denen der „Anwendung“ (synonym zu „Konstruktion“) die primäre sinnstiftende Rolle zugeschrieben wird (vgl. T-3.263, 3.5, 3.326 ff., 5.557)."

„Against the view that the *Tractatus* starts from a given reality in itself (and so holds a position diametrically opposed to Radical Constructivism), there speaks a series of propositions in which the primary sense-constituting role is ascribed to "application" (synonymous with "construction") (cf. TLP 3.263, 3.5, 3.326 ff., 5.557)."

„Against the view that the *Tractatus* starts from a given reality in itself (and so holds a position diametrically opposed to Radical Constructivism), there speaks a series of propositions in which the primary sense-constituting role is ascribed to "application" (synonymous with "construction") (cf. TLP 3.263, 3.5, 3.326 ff., 5.557)."

„Against the view that the *Tractatus* starts from a given reality in itself (and so holds a position diametrically opposed to Radical Constructivism), there speaks a series of propositions in which the primary sense-constituting role is ascribed to "application" (synonymous with "construction") (cf. TLP 3.263, 3.5, 3.326 ff., 5.557)."

„T-4.12 u.ö.) Gegen die Auffassung, wonach der Traktat von einer vorgegebenen Wirklichkeit an sich ausgehe (also eine dem Radikalen Konstruktivismus diametral entgegengesetzte Position vertrete), sprechen eine Reihe von Sätzen, in denen der „Anwendung“ (synonym zu „Konstruktion“) die primäre sinnstiftende Rolle zugeschrieben wird (vgl. T-3.263, 3.5, 3.326 ff., 5.557)."

„T-4.12 u.ö.) Gegen die Auffassung, wonach der Traktat von einer vorgegebenen Wirklichkeit an sich ausgehe (also eine dem Radikalen Konstruktivismus diametral entgegengesetzte Position vertrete), sprechen eine Reihe von Sätzen, in denen der „Anwendung“ (synonym zu „Konstruktion“) die primäre sinnstiftende Rolle zugeschrieben wird (vgl. T-3.263, 3.5, 3.326 ff., 5.557)."

„die Substanz (Φx), aber wir können die Elementarsätze nicht a priori angeben, denn dies würde zu Unsinn führen (vgl. TLP-5.5571): „Der Elementarsatz besteht aus Namen."

„TLP 5.555), namely the propositional variable "Φx" (or substance Φx), but we cannot give the elementary propositions a priori, for this would lead to nonsense (cf. TLP 5.5571): "An elementary proposition consists of names."

„*empirical*, reality. OBJECTS are what a procedure of description offers with regard to the determinabilities and determinations available in it, and thus with regard to the points of reference that can be singled out – it is in this pragmatic sense that "language" is also to be read in TLP 5.6: "*The limits of my language* mean the limits of my world.""

„In TLP 5.6 the possessive pronoun "my" plays a central role."

„the logic and world limited by it) would remain empty. This vacuum is now filled by the SUBJECT. It is from this perspective that the passage TLP 5.6 ff. is to be seen."

„Finally, this ontology reveals, at its own limit, an epistemology: a subject for whom this reality is accessible precisely in this way and no other. This subject is not an object among others in the world but, as the solipsistic passages of the *Tractatus* suggest (TLP 5.6–5.641), the limit of the world itself."

„Finally, this ontology reveals, at its own limit, an epistemology: a subject for whom this reality is accessible precisely in this way and no other. This subject is not an object among others in the world but, as the solipsistic passages of the *Tractatus* suggest (TLP 5.6–5.641), the limit of the world itself."

„*empirische Realität*. Die GEGENSTÄNDE sind das Angebot eines Beschreibungsverfahrens im Hinblick auf die darin verfügbaren Bestimmbarkeiten und Bestimmungen, der insofern also hervorhebbaren Referenzpunkte - in diesem pragmatischen Sinne ist „Sprache" auch in TLP-5.6 zu lesen: „*Die Grenzen meiner Sprache* bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt.""