Reddit reviews Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

William Lycan's Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction is very helpful and comprehensive as an overview.

As for really famous primary works in the field, you might want to check these out:


Truth and Meaning

Tarski's The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics

Quine's Two Dogma's of Empiricism

Davidson's Truth and Meaning

Pragmatics

Austin's How to Do Things with Words

Grice's Logic and Conversation


Reference

Donellen's Reference and Definite Descriptions

Kripke's Naming and Necessity

Wittgenstein

Primary Lit:

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus (obviously)

Secondary Lit (I'm only well versed on the secondary lit for the later Wittgenstein, so I'll give you that):

Marie McGinn's Routledge Guide

John McDowell's Wittgenstein on Following a Rule

Meredith Williams' Wittgenstein, Mind, and Meaning

----

Hope that helps!

EDIT: Added a lot

> Hahaha, very amusing as I was just thinking the same thought to myself! "I don't think I quite meant that sentence like I stated it, perhaps I need to re-evaluate what I actually mean." It's more like, we've given certain words too much power? I feel the thought in my head, I'm just struggling to articulate it exactly. Because if you asked me "Do words have power" my answer would be "yes." This is a contradiction, seemingly. I suppose what I'm saying is that we give specific words too much energy or power, or perhaps it's even deeper on a language level? Some are trying to change our language into something that I feel is less useful to us? Or that sometimes I feel that our language is being hijacked in order to serve a specific agenda, and force dialogue into certain channels? I shall keep pondering what I actually mean...

Ok, that made sense, and I would agree. Certain words and ideas hold more power than they "should." That's a very interesting, very complex topic. I'm not sure what I mean by should, but for example, screaming terrorist on Sept 12 2011 probably held a different meaning that day, and for many days following. I don't mean that it actually "had a different meaning;" it would be more accurate to call it a different effect.

> Back to that peculiar situation we sometimes find ourselves in, where there are two truth's in opposition to one another. The reason I'm beginning to see isn't that it's necessarily the universe that holds the two truths in opposition, but our own language that defines things rigidly, that makes things seem in opposition to one another, but in reality are part of a greater whole.

Yes. 2x yes.

I've mentioned Wittgenstein a couple times here before, but if you want to make headway on language and its usage, you should try reading his two works Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations.

I've been eyeing the Tractatus in my pile of books, but honestly my mind is not yet advanced enough to understand it to the degree I feel it deserves. But maybe you might find it worth the read regarding language and its usage. He was huge on word games - not playing them, well maybe, but I think he had a truly holistic understanding of language.

EDIT: And while we're on the topic of language, since I cannot seem to escape the Being-Becoming duality, I instead attempt to embrace it to the extent that it furthers my understanding of the world.

Let's take the sentence "I don't know that yet." The most important takeaway from that sentence is that it does not read "I don't know that." The expectation of future understanding exists when you include the word, sure, but does expectation of future understanding not exist if you exclude the word 'yet'? The answer must be no, and it's quite easy to prove so, but to leave it at that would be folly. Does not including the word 'yet' have an implication regarding a trajectory of the mind and body? Why did that person not say the word yet? Do they not think understanding may come in the future? The man that says 'yet' is already thinking with energy into the future, and as such, I tentatively argue that the inclusion of the word yet, its mere inclusion, has consequences on whether or not you will achieve whatever came before 'yet'. Alternatively, the man that considers future understanding and excludes the word 'yet', purposefully or not, must in some manner be limiting himself.

So, does the man that says 'yet' and attains that future understanding exist as the man who was going to know, always going to know, or does that same man exist as the man that knows because he said 'yet'?

Ultimately, I see man as trying to separate himself from language, but that is an ignorant perspective. Ignorant of the vast interconnectivity of EVERYTHING. Oh there is so much to say about language... I would say other than trying to answer why there is something and not nothing, language might be the most complex and befuddling topic in existence.