The Tractatus can be most accurately be described as a work encompassing the world as a two-dimensional structure, where names derive their meaning from the location they have in what Wittgenstein called 'logical-space'. Pictures (picture theory of language) or the meaning of words have their meaning in two-dimensions.

Hegel's philosophy sought out to describe the world as a manufactured consent between individuals in time.

The Investigations went even further and described 'the world' as a construct in terms of relativism between subjects and the world.

This brings me to my idea that great works of philosophy are great because they do not work in describing the world in terms of the dimensional relation of a subject to the objective, the world. Of which, countless works of ethics seem to not transcend; but, rather do away with the ontological problem of the subject matter and basically, assert that this is simply 'the way thing are', which is just simply the naturalistic fallacy stated another way.

How would you describe different aspects of philosophy in terms of dimensionality? The linguistic convention is to see the world in two dimensions. Words have meaning, and that meaning is derived from a shared consensus on the state space or 'logical-space' between the world and an individual or group of individuals. Whereas some philosophers postulate that some objects have meaning beyond this subject-object relationship; but, I don't think their philosophy is compatible or even able to describe the world, again committing the naturalistic fallacy. This brings me to believe that multi-dimensional or the modality of words and their meaning is shaped through time.

However, this brings up a sort of quasi-paradox which people seem to bring up very often. Namely, if words derive their meaning from a dialectical method, and with that scientific discoveries, then how can we be certain about the persistence of meaning? Thus, it would seem that meaning is constantly evolving and changing, and the limits of my language are the limits of my world until I go through the process of learning the new definition or 'updated' definition with respect to the changes that our understanding of the word underwent throughout time. Kripke calls this acquiring meaning through a sort of 'baptism' through time.

Thoughts and ideas?