The most significant error in #Wittgensteins Tractatus, begins with the first proposition - and just continues down a rabbit hole of mistakes.
Ludwig conflates “the world” as being everything that is “the case.”
This shallow, materialist approach (irregardless of whether he intended this) - posits a view of our reality which is fundamentally about physical matter.
I can empathize with the view - only when I consider where he was when he wrote this book. He was in the trenches of World War I. Not a place where Plato’s, Hegel, or spiritual metaphysics are exactly knocking on your door - dodging bullets has a tendency to consume all of your attention - yet after reading this book over and over again, I think there are only (3) lessons/metaphors that non-philosophers may enjoy knowing:
1. This book is written precisely how all philosophy books and essays which seek to establish truth, through logical argumentation - should be. It plays out in clear numbers, his argument(s) from 1-N, and he does not seem to be “hiding the cards,” or using a form of persuasive speech (Parrhesia, see Foucault on free speech) - no, he does what all public intellectuals should do: be both honest and transparent about your ideas, your assumptions and what you don’t know; and expose your ideas to open attack.
2. His metaphor regarding the ladder - 🪜 is profound, and puzzling. To me it says simply this: as humans we cannot “un-know” something. In addition, we cannot sort through all of what impacts our perceptions and ideas and isolate one cause for why we think, perceive or believe what we do as individuals. Until consciousness’ and its quantum nature (or perhaps 5 Dimensional state? See Penrose, discussion on the 5-D crystal) - we as humans are basically sponges.
3. And finally, this book demonstrates a truth we all tend to forget: you need not be an expert to radically transform an entire field of thought. Ludwig had read - as far as I can find - only a handful of philosophy books, yet he had sufficient confidence in his 20’s, as a young soldier to write a book he believed would end - in many ways - analytic philosophy. This courage is something more Americans need to embody. Don’t get a PhD or Masters in a field before you think you are qualified to write. Per #2 above - re: sponges - 🧽- “knowing” a field is more likely (in my assessment) to make you replicate existing errors within a field of expertise - than to make a new or unique insight.