Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus · Chapter
3.322 explained
Wittgenstein argues that using the same sign for two different objects, but with different methods of symbolizing, cannot indicate a common characteristic between them.
What happens
Wittgenstein argues that using the same sign for two different objects, but with different methods of symbolizing, cannot indicate a common characteristic between them. The sign is arbitrary, so we could just as easily use two different signs, which would eliminate any apparent commonality in the symbolization.
Free preview opens on this chapter — companions, themes, and character notes appear beside the text.
Narrative arc
Story tension across the book — this chapter sits in Exposition.
- Setup
- Escalation
- Breaking point
- Aftermath
- Closing
This passage marks the story’s dramatic climax because it presents the moment when the protagonist’s obsessive…
Full beat labels and climax notes unlock in the reader.
Follow the arc while readingThemes in this chapter
- Limits of Language and Thought
The discussion of arbitrary signs and the inability to indicate common characteristics through symbolization highlights the boundaries of what language can express about objects.
Characters to notice
- Mr. Wittgenstein
Author of the proposition, presenting the argument about the arbitrariness of signs and the impossibility of indicating common characteristics through identical signs with different methods of symbolizing.
Key passages
“It can never indicate the common characteristic of two objects that we symbolize them with the same signs but by different methods of symbolizing.”
Using the same sign for two objects with different symbolic methods does not reveal any shared property between them.
Wittgenstein emphasizes that the method of symbolizing, not the sign itself, determines meaning.
“For the sign is arbitrary. We could therefore equally well choose two different signs and where then would be what was common in the symbolization?”
Since signs are chosen arbitrarily, we could use different signs instead, and then any supposed commonality in the symbolization would disappear.
This reinforces the arbitrariness of signs and questions the notion of inherent commonality in symbolization.
