The present Spanish language anniversary edition, in contrast to Luciano Bazzocchi’s English Centenary Edition (2021), does not seek to revivify the interest for the Tractatus as a scientific achievement. Rather my goal as the translator and commentator of the book is to introduce a huge quotation mark after the relevance of the book as a source of insightful scientific reflection. ndeed, the Tractatus's real value for philosophy and science-making in general is put to the test. For one thing, the Wittgenstein of 1922 espoused a radical, anti-psychological stance that invalidates many of the alleged accomplishments of this manuscript-book. Having logics as a solvent for philosophical embellishment with language was simply a means to an end for Wittgenstein namely, to eliminate any “subjective noise” from the process of knowledge construction, his stated goal being to reduce philosophy to a system of laws (see remark 6.341, 6.342). This ideology of progress by logics (6.37), a glorification of seeing over understanding, endorses a view by which good science is precisely all that which can be reduced to the laws of physics and Newtonian mechanics. Seen from our modern vantage point, this conceptual error is understandable. Notwithstanding, one cannot but question the pervasiveness of such ideas, and the ungrounded endorsement of many researchers looking for a philosophical anchor, a sort of hidden foundational substance allegedly encoded in the Tractatus. My point is that this book has exhausted its self-appointed value as a scientific work (see Wittgenstein's prologue to the book) and, hence, should be removed from the corpus of scientific scholarship to be relocated in the shelves of literary idiosyncrasy. As Wittgenstein himself conceded, the Tractatus is nonsensical, as it fails to go beyond its own wording to explain what logics cannot account for: creativity and uncertainty. Facts provide glaring evidence to this: despite a century of studies and (mis)interpretations, the Tractatus remains puzzling and has failed to yield a single accomplishment outside the field of Tractarian scholarship. And, since even Frege, the source of many of the Tractarian remarks, deemed this work an “artistic piece”, rather than a genuine scientific text, I think no further evidence should be provided at this point to support the thesis driving this edition: scientists, especially those involved in cognition and embodiment theory