Wittgenstein's _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_, first published in 1921, has had a profound influence on modern philosophic thought. _Prototractatus_ is a facsimile reproduction of an early version of _Tractatus_, only discovered in 1965. The original text has a parallel English translation and the text is edited to indicate all relevant deviations from the final version.

These new studies of Wittgenstein's Tractatus represent a significant step beyond recent polemical debate.

Wittgenstein's 'Prototractatus' raises difficult textual questions concerning both its structure and the date of its composition. I provide an account of the structure of the 'Prototractatus' by investigating the hitherto unexplored connections between it and other early Wittgenstein manuscripts. I then consider the two most influential proposals on its date of composition, made by von Wright and McGuinness, and argue that neither of them stands up to scrutiny. I make an alternative suggestion, and discuss its implications for the significance of (...) the 'Prototractatus' in the study of Wittgenstein's early philosophy. -/- . (shrink)

A close investigation of Wittgenstein’s MS 104, which contains the so-called Prototractatus, has shown that the manuscript originally contained an additional folio that was later cut out and is now missing. The content of this missing folio could be partly reconstructed by a faint inverse imprint that it has left behind on page 2. The paper discusses the consequences of this discovery for the interpretation of the beginning and early formation of the Prototractatus, including the introduction and role of the (...) numbering system. The paper also provides a transcription of the deepest visible textual layers of the first conception of the picture theory. (shrink)

If we read the Tractatus logico-philosophicus according to the decimal numbering of its propositions, we may understand, finally, the section about the self and the limits of language and world. Proposition 5.64 follows 5.63 (not 5.634); 5.634 follows 5.633 (not 5.6331); and so on. Thus, it becomes clear that the picture of the visual field (TLP 5.6331) cannot be what scholars have always quoted and discussed, i.e. a draft of an eye inside its field of sight. Actually, Wittgenstein’s original drafts (...) depict (to criticise it) the ordinary way of representing the visual field. Following him, the field of vision is ‘without limits’; it does not have a form that implies the existence of an eye, as far as the phenomenological experience does not have a form that implies the existence of an ‘I’. As a result, the current reproductions of the 5.6331 image must be rectified, and all references to this similitude should be radically amended. (shrink)

Wittgenstein was not only an inspirational figure for Schlick but also contributed to scientific philosophy as Neurath demanded. His verificationism is one instance of this, but it is also shown in his treatment of probability (where his ideas were developed further by Waismann). Wittgenstein revived Bolzano's logical interpretation of probability, anticipating Carnap and many moderns. He construed laws of nature as hypotheses that we had to assume. It is the general form of these hypotheses (what he later called a worldview) (...) and not (pace von Wright) relative frequency that provides the basis for judgements of probability. (shrink)