[C] [Wittrs] Re: Re: Solipsism
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:49:14 -0800
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Cayuse <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 13, 2011 10:49 PM
> *Subject:* [Wittrs] Re: [C] Solipsism
>
> > In TLP he says there's something right about solipsism (5.62c), and
> that's worth discussing. What's right about it?
>
> 5.6 *The limits of my language* mean the limits of my world.
>
> 5.62 [...] what the solipsist *means* is quite correct; only it cannot be
> *said*, but it makes itself manifest.
> The world is *my* world: this is manifest in the fact that the
> limits of *language* (of that language which alone I understand) mean the
> limits of *my* world.
>
>
> This has perplexed me for some time. I'm confused as to how the possessive
> can be applied to the world that the solipsist *is:*
> **
>
I think you're right to zoom in on the relationship of "ownership" as being
of interest.
The theme continues into the PI, where W questions the owner of the "virtual
room" as to how this "ownership" might be construed.
Does the self have a self? Does a self have experience or does experience
have a self?
We're long familiar with recursive patterns in the grammar at this point, as
captured by this figure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartesian_Theater.svg
The sense in which a self "has" (owns, is related to) experience is somewhat
without analogy -- is that what's right about solipsism?
5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)
>
> And what is he implying by his use of the word 'microcosm' as though the
> solipsist is *not alone*?
> (A denial of the agnosticism that is inherent in epistemological solipsism,
> and of the anti-realism that is the nature of metaphysical solipsism.)
>
Might a solipsist, without claiming "omniscience" (or other super powers),
experience something called personal growth or greater awareness?
If so, then a microcosm might be that sense of expanding into a greater self
awareness?
I don't insist the Tractatus be logically rigorous in some nonsensical
manner i.e. there's always room for nuance.
To an individual, its meaning will likely shift over time (waxing and waning
in relevance perhaps), as it did for W himself certainly.
Kirby
Other related posts:
