[Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Free Will and Wittgenstein
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Greetings J.
Appreciate your contributions, as always. Here's my sense of the matter.
The "free will" thing probably doesn't fit into well into Wittgenstein's ideas
about predestination, spirituality, etc. I think it better fits into his
remarks
about idealists and realists -- which is where I had placed them in my mails.
But first, let me clarify: it has never been my position that the false
problems
philosophy occupies itself with do not serve some useful pedagogical purpose.
You would want entry-level philosophy (or high school) students being exposed
to
things like "how do I know I exist," "is the tree real," and "do I have free
will." This is the karate of sticks and pads that I spoke about. So I do
not disparage this as such, for what it is. But, at some point in time, it must
be understood, lest confusion result, that the matter presents no real problem
to or for philosophy at all -- and, I think, not science either (thought that
is
a tougher prop).
It's interesting to see the free will discussion being defended along the lines
of "the beauty or fright it causes it others souls." I've heard several people
on different lists speak of how efficacious positions on free will can be --
the way, e.g., that beliefs in devils might affect others. I recall when I was
in high school having a similar feeling from reading a Tony Robbins book. It
was
his first book, and boy did the "positive thinking" get me going. (One wonders
what Mike Ditka would have done with that).
And for what it is worth, I AGREE with you that things that cultivate the
garden
of others are indeed left to such purposes as they are, and should never be
invaded by the rude and narrow minded. To that end, I agree it is not
"Wittgensteinian" to disturb anyone getting joy in their heart from free will
or
Peanuts or what not.
But where we may differ is in what happens next. Because if the occupancy of
free will ever changes to a "problem to be solved," one could indeed enter On
Certainty to find what to make of it. And what one would find is very much the
way Moore was treated, or the way an idealists/realists debate is -- as in need
of a kind of therapy to dissolve the problem into peace. A therapy that shews
problems in assertability conditions, grammar, etc. Whether one likes it or
not, Wittgenstein is an elitist project. He's not tyrannical and oppressive
like
the "Carnapians" -- who are as narrow minded as any -- but he is, at the end of
the day, the king of insight. And in a Wittgensteinian world, if a person isn't
being insightful with his or her intellectual projects, this may have to be
shewn in the appropriate venues. In fact, this is specifically the mission that
Wittgenstein laid out for "philosophy properly conceived."
I think this covers the dislike you take for my attitudes. Please know that I
always wish you the best and would want to see more of your insights in here.
Regards and thanks.
SW
Other related posts:
