[C] [Wittrs] Re: Reading Wittgenstein, was Wittgenstein on Religious Belief
- From: J DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:42:26 -0800 (PST)
"An Austrian general said to someone: 'I shall think of you after my death, if
that should be possible'. We can imagine one group who would find this
ludicrous, another who wouldn't...."
Let's examine that. First, it is an example taken presumably from a story that
Wittgenstein heard or read, perhaps during his time as a soldier in the First
World War. Perhaps he was witness to it. He doesn't say. It sounds plausible
enough that someone might have said some such thing, but is it important that
he seems to be referencing an actual individual rather than offering a
hypothetical or fictional example?
Perhaps this event had made an impression on him. Perhaps the "someone" was
Wittgenstein himself. Perhaps there is an element of confessional here. We
likely will never be able to do more than speculate.
Still, the Austrian general as our starting point does raise intriguing
questions.
"We can imagine..." Of course we can. That much is obvious. But let's do so.
I don't think that things are as simple as, "Well, of course a nonbeliever
would find it ludicrous, while a believer would not." That may be the initial
temptation here, but I think we should resist the lure of the easy answer.
For one thing, the general said, "if that should be possible." While some
staunch atheists would likely find that ludicrous, would an agnostic? Surely
not!
One might even take the general for an agnostic himself.
And given that, we might also imagine that some Christians would find it
ludicrous. If we are "saved by faith" as they say, and his faith seems
hesitant at best, then some might say, "With that attitude, you'll be thinking
from those thoughts from Hell!"
Perhaps there is no doubt in his mind about the afterlife, only his worthiness
for it. Perhaps the general accepts some form of predestination.
Some of Wittgenstein's personal reflections on predestination.
"Could the concept of the punishments of hell be explained in some other way
than by way of the concept of punishment? Or the concept of God’s goodness in
some other way than by way of the concept of goodness?
If you want to achieve the right effect with your words, doubtless not.
Suppose someone were taught: There is a being who, if you do this & that, live
in such & such a way, will take you after your death to a place of eternal
torment; most people end up there, a few get to a place of eternal joy. – This
being has picked out in advance those who are to get to the
good place; &, since only those who have lived a certain sort of life get to
the place of torment, he has also picked out in advance those who are to lead
that sort of life.
What might be the effect of such a doctrine?
Well, there is no mention of punishment here, but rather a kind of natural law.
And anyone to whom it is represented in such a light, could derive only despair
or incredulity from it. Teaching this could not be an ethical training. And if
you wanted to train anyone ethically & yet teach him
like this, you would have to teach the doctrine after the ethical training, and
represent it as a sort of incomprehensible mystery."
"Predestination: It is only permissible to write like this out of the most
dreadful suffering -- and then it means something quite different. But for the
same reason it is not permissible for someone to assert it as a truth, unless
he himself says it in torment. --It simply isn't a theory.
--Or to put it another way: If this is truth, it is not the truth that
seems at first sight to be expressed by these words. It's less a theory
than a sigh, or a cry."
Must even the atheist find what the general says ludicrous? The general
doesn't even say that it is possible, only entertain a possibility.
Or rather, the possibility is only entertained, but that is not all that the
general is doing,
When I imagine this, I imagine (with no good reason?) a general expressing his
concern for a soldier under his command. Could this not be the highest
expression of the responsibilities of a general for those he sends into battle:
even my death will not end my responsibility for your welfare, and even in
death, my concern for you will continue"?
Back to predestination. One can easily imagine a general who, having sought to
lead a Christian life, but finding himself called to the bloody business of war
- especially the senselessness of WWI - supposes himself damned to Hell. And
yet, his concern is for his duty to those he commands.
I would certainly never call such a thing "ludicrous".
And I do not think that who would or would not are so easily sorted in our
imaginations.
JPDeMouy
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
