I have no business reading this because I’ve never taken a philosophy class from an actual philosopher, and so the likelihood is high that I’ll misapprehend this or that crucial fact or crucial distinction between facts. Or, anyway, it’s almost certain that even now, in various ways, I’m all but blind to things or concepts that other, more educated people are so painfully aware of -- so aware, in fact, that their observance of my error is a literally painful thing for them, as when one encounters a foul smell, an evil smell.... So, anyway, that’s at least my fear. (And it’s a valid fear, and no amount of mollycoddling from well-intentioned others will make a difference either. It’s obviously not a crippling fear; for I am, after all, writing about it in a public forum.) And so I won’t try to say anything other than this. What I’ve understood of the Tractatus, I like. I find it especially useful in its treatment of contradiction w/in a system.

Oops: see? There’s the error. I’ve conflated Mounce’s “Introduction” w/ the Tractatus itself. Mounce does a phenomenal job of introducing the novice to the Tractatus. Obviously, right? I mean, I feel like I’ve read and comprehended the Tractatus. But I haven’t read the Tractatus; I’ve read only Mounce’s introduction to the Tractatus.

Take from this review what you will.

But know this: Mounce is an adequate tutor. He’s an agreeable mental companion. A chum.

I highly recommend this book.
( )