Yes, reading is a skill. Thanks. But my point stands. To distinguish between natural science and not-natural science seems to require something that is not natural science.

I view metaphysical systems as more akin to poetry rather than tautology. I agree that one cannot prove or disprove a metaphysical system but then the concept of proof is itself metaphysical, or so it seems to me. This ties into the proof as persuasion thread. What is proof? Does the concept of proof imply a metaphysics? Is an attack on the possibility of metaphysics itself a metaphysical operation?

I'm not associating these views with anyone on this thread. I'm just curious as to your opinions on these matters.

Fair enough. Metaphysics need not be tautological- it could be contradictory, ala irony, humor, etc.

The point being, metaphysics is conscerned with describing the limits of language, which can actually be summed up by contradictions and tautologies. Nonsense in general.

One can no more prove and disprove a contradiction than a tautology. I forget what W says in the TLP, but you will surely recognize it when you come to it.

'The disappearance of magic is a sort of magic itself' [or something like that]
-LW

Proof as persuasion? Maybe proof as explanation. Or maybe proof as description...

Do you think calling metaphysics tautological is an attack? Or rather an affirmation?

That all bachelors are unmarried men is not a tautology. It is more definition.

In the opening sections of the Tractatus Wittgenstein sets out his metaphysical view of the world, why we should accept this particular metaphysical view is not apparent at the beginning.

In fact it is quite clear that he is not stating a tautology. Proposition 1.1 States 'The world is the totality of facts not things'. The difference between facts and things can be understood by an analogy between sentences and words. For Wittgenstein the relationship between is much like the relationship between sentences and words. The sentence 'R.Danneskjold is an idiot' is constructed out of words specifically 'R.Danneskjold; idiot; an; is', written like this they are merely a list even though our list consists of the same words. But a sentence is much like a fact as it contains words in relation to one another. Like Wittgenstein's facts which contain 'a combination of objects (things)'(2.01) in relation to one another.

Proposition 1.13 states that the 'The facts in logical space are the world'. Logical Space is the space of possibilities. There are lots of facts which might have existed, such as 'Wittgenstein's family were poor' or 'R.Danneskjold is 6ft tall' these facts are called negative facts by Wittgenstein 'The existence of atomic facts we also call a positive fact, their nonexistence a negative fact' (2.06). Actual facts only account for some of the possible facts in logical space, only some of these possibilities are occupied by what is actually the case. It is in this way that the world is all that is the case.

A tautology is not in itself nonsensical. It is Wittgenstein's rejection of metaphysics and his criterion of meaning that leads him to brand his own work as nonsense. As the rejection of metaphysics is neither a posteriori or analytic. This can be clearly seen in Proposition 6.53 :

'The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other - he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy - but it would be the only strictly correct method.'

His use of 'Philosophy' means the same as thing as he means by 'metaphysics', which leads him to reject his own work as meaningless. Others such as Carnap and Hume who have also wished eliminate metaphysics haven't seen this apparent paradox. But Wittgenstein seems to see the problem which is presented by this rejection quite clearly going on to state in Proposition 6.54.

'My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them'.

Do you think calling metaphysics tautological is an attack? Or rather an affirmation?

Proof as persuasion? Maybe proof as explanation. Or maybe proof as description...

'The disappearance of magic is a sort of magic itself' [or something like that]
-LW

One can no more prove and disprove a contradiction than a tautology. I forget what W says in the TLP, but you will surely recognize it when you come to it.

Is a system of categories metaphysical? Is language a system of categories? Is language metaphysical?

Why ever clarify anything ever, or seek truth? Every thing is relative, right guys?

'substance is what there is besides what is the case'.

T
Well, I might have gotten off on a tangent there. the point is, you cannot prove the meaning of a word. .

'The facts in logical space are the world'. Logical Space is the space of possibilities. There are lots of facts which might have existed, such as 'Wittgenstein's family were poor' or 'R.Danneskjold is 6ft tall' these facts are called negative facts by Wittgenstein 'The existence of atomic facts we also call a positive fact, their nonexistence a negative fact' (2.06). Actual facts only account for some of the possible facts in logical space, only some of these possibilities are occupied by what is actually the case. It is in this way that the world is all that is the case.

Maybe their is a neat distinction being made, but I don't know how important that is.

Well, I might have gotten off on a tangent there. the point is, you cannot prove the meaning of a word. Thus, you cannot prove what you think you can prove. On the contrary, it is far easier to prove meaning is use.

Tautologies are truths in virtue of the meanings of their terms.

Tautologies are truths in virtue of the meanings of their terms.

What does besides here mean?
Besides as in apart from or besides as in next to?
Trying to understand and be clever at the same time.

2.024
Substance is what exists independently of what is the case.

1 So where do the impossibilities go? 2 what are the possibles if they have not truth? 3 does truth or fact have anyhting to do with possibility when some which are credited as possible are not yet truth or fact? 4 What makes a possibility? If you have already answered please do so again.

1 How can something be a fact which nearly exists? 2 Surly then it is in the realm of theoretics not facts, are facts waiting to be proved any less truth, because the truth fact has not yet been disproven? How can something be real if we have not lived the reality?

1 We do not know all the world no matter how real we are not, yet made more real for knowing or proving it?
2 Is the theory the more truth before the truth is even made theory?
3 Is this where impossibility can also be seen as a negative fact for although it has not yet been proved (or cannot be) it is still a theory so is still a form of reality?

Sorry if this does not make sense, just sat here theorising or impossibilising, this stuff is harder than i thought, got the Tractatus today and have no idea where to start.

It seems rather important, some people know themselves by that which they cant, some people know themselves by that which others wont let them.
True all sittuational, but different people sit in different ways. (some are even sat upon)

That sounds like what a tautology is trying to do, assert something by trying to ground it in by meaning then example it by use, or visa versa.
How far off the mark am I?