It's interesting that you mention Schopenhauer. Until I read the Richter study guide to the Tractatus, I had no idea how much of an influence he was on W. Particularly "The Fourfold Root" apparently. W --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@...> wrote: > > > > --- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote: > > > > 6.41 > > > > The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything > > is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value?and if > > there were, it would be of no value. > > > This just seems false to me for the following simple reason: > > All fictions (like anything spoken of that is not in the world) have a sense > because any fiction spoken of, by that token, has a sense from the author of > the fiction, no? > > > > > If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening > > and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. > > > This sounds like patent nonsense. If I value a good treatise on how rhythmic > ear training can be represented at every step by written notation, it follows > (by abduction) that the value is mine, I'm in the world. > > OTOH, what is the point of deliberately writing (or defining that which is > not entirely about blind brute physics as nonsense) nonsense and calling it > such at the end of a so-called book _of_ philosophy? I conclude that a book > _of_ philosophy with the upshot that philosophy has subject matter that makes > no sense and is defined (arbitrarily) as having no connection to science, is > simply bad philosophy (by arbitrary?) definition. > > > > > > > What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this > > would again be accidental. > > > > It must lie outside the world. > > I'm a causal realizer of a mambo groove I wrote and tweaked today for a > student. I needed nonaccidental causality to get it done and it couldn't > have gotten done just accidentally, though I feel I could have realized other > grooves as well, and as I did. And all that happened in the world as far as > I'm aware. > > How does Wittgenstein get away with this sort of thing? Well, one can get a > taste for it by reading Schopenhauer's _The World as Will and Representation, > Vol.2, "On Man's Need for Metaphysics." Just as some of the flavor of > Schop's fourfold root of the principle of suff. reason is the reason why > Witters picks up on calling value-assertions senseless, Schop. doesn't think > that ethical statements, er, considerations are to be eliminated or reduced > to a place where they aren't. > > I consider Schop. one of the first nonreductive materialists (though > complaining that materialism proper just forgets to think there can be an > (scientific) account of subjectivity) who took consciousness seriously and > allowed that there probably is no arguing against the idea that such may be > given a causal account. Note that what Schop. regards as grades of > objectification of the will (natural forces combining into systems that are > both conscious and capable of being moved by art being at the highest grade) > are distinct grades even though all grades reduce to natural forces. Causal > reducibility without ontological reduction as Seare has it. Middle sized > objects (brains and concepts) as allowing for distinct sciences that have a > vocabulary that cross-classifies without introducing anything not there, > maintaining that, contra some concept pragmatists, there are bona fide mental > events without there being an a priori argument available which suggests such > a view to be saddled with what Kim calls causal overdetermination (Something > like Fodor's view if I have him right). > > > > 6.42 > > > > Hence also there can be no ethical propositions. > > > > Propositions cannot express anything higher. > > > Well, one can define propositions that way I suppose. What is the upshot, > though? Now it's 6.42 and, later, that 6.42 is nonsense. But surely this is > an important (ethically speaking?) art that Witters concocted because the > upshot is not to do philosophy a certain way. Perhaps he shows this by > writing a book that is both good and good insofar as it shows that it can > only show the ethical upshot without talking about it? Somehow it seems > better books are possible, as it seemed later to Witters. > > > > > > > 6.421 > > > > It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed. > > > > Ethics is transcendental. > > > > (Ethics and æsthetics are one.) > > > I think my student had better practice that mambo along with transitioning to > the punk groove I also wrote in order to hack something new and cool to play. > Or is Witters saying that ethical statements that are in a more general form > ought not to be thought as expressible given some definitions of > expressibility for (four-fold root?) reasons? > > > > > > > 6.422 > > > > > > The first thought in setting up an ethical law of the form "thou shalt . . > > ." is: And what if I do not do it? But it is clear that ethics has nothing > > to do with punishment and reward in the ordinary sense. This question as to > > the consequences of an action must therefore be irrelevant. At least these > > consequences will not be events. > > > Is it not _possible events_ as consequences that are implied by following or > not following a rule? Thou shalt count in order to tell me where that > particular eighth note right there (pointing) is in 4/4 time. So the student > points at the note without saying anything. Then I remind about the type of > answer required. But I now see that I probably missed the point about > "ethical law"--Witters might have read Nietzsche complaining about how unfair > it would be to allow our not following ethical laws while disallowing God not > to follow some too on a whim. I allow that I still may have missed the > point. Perhaps Witters is critiquing the idea of an abstract consequence as > the "material" from which an ethical proposition gets its content? > > > > > For there must be something right in that > > formulation of the question. There must be some sort of ethical reward and > > ethical punishment, but this must lie in the action itself. > > > > (And this is clear also that the reward must be something acceptable, and > > the punishment something unacceptable.) > > > > 6.423 > > > > Of the will as the subject of the ethical we cannot speak. > > Is this taken as a fact now, and later (at 7) not a fact? > How about the will as the subject of some natural force systems with the gift > of gab and bossiness? > > > > > And the will as a phenomenon is only of interest to psychology. > > Here Witters seems to be using will in a more restricted sense than Schop. > does (everthing is will--though that may seem senseless as Walter pointed out > about generalities of such kinds as use the whole world as subject of a > proposition). But Witters seems to allow here what Fodor might think a > concession to the view that philosophy has to be a bit about science, > psychology being an important one due to all the concepts running around in > philosophy books. > > > > > 6.43 > > > > If good or bad willing changes the world, it can only change the limits of > > the world, not the facts; not the things that can be expressed in language. > > > This will soon look like nonsense if it doesn't already.. > > > > > In brief, the world must thereby become quite another, it must so to speak > > wax or wane as a whole. > > > As a whole--neat! Wax or wane where as a whole? And so on. > > > > > The world of the happy is quite another than that of the unhappy. > > > It is pointless to parade truisms as philosophy only later to point out that > the truisms are nonsensical. > > > > > 6.431 > > > > As in death, too, the world does not change, but ceases. > > > As a whole for that person who doesn't know that it ceases? Or did the world > cease after the death of Adam? I'm just making fun now. And what about > possible eternal occurrence of possible worlds in both series and parallel > (somehow and don't ask!) such that each of them get played over and over like > a record? Note that this doesn't imply that each possible world doesn't > contain potential realizers of causes in the form (of persons) that we have > today (Hey mambo! Mambo Italiano!) > > > > > > 6.4311 > > > > Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through. > > > Yes it is; furthermore, since it is not lived through, death can't constitute > cessation of the world, including mine as far as I can tell. > > > > > > If by eternity is understood not endless temporal duration but > > timelessness, then he lives eternally who lives in the present. > > > That holds (or seems to possibly) even if by eternity is understood endless > temporal duration. How thin of a present? > > > > > Our life is endless in the way that our visual field is without limit. > > Witters on acid! I can see for miles and miles and Miles Davis plays on > endlessly in the eternal music of playfulness that is so innocent it forgot > to stop playing, ever, according to Nietzsche's view of the most scientific > possible hypothesis--. > > > > 6.4312 > > > > The temporal immortality of the human soul, that is to say, its eternal > > survival after death, is not only in no way guaranteed, but this assumption > > in the first place will not do for us what we always tried to make it do. > > Is a riddle solved by the fact that I survive for ever? Is this eternal > > life not as enigmatic as our present one? The solution of the riddle of > > life in space and time lies outside space and time. > > Pure Schopenhauer--except that space and time as we conceive them > (phenomenon), for Schop., are not real in the way will in itself "is," and > that only possibly (hence the scare quotes), what with Schop. going on and on > in his "Epiphilosophy" chapter at the end of the 2nd vol. of WWR as concerns > our inability to speak of it (will in itself) because all our understanding > is equipped to deal with are things/events that fall under the fourfold root > of the PSR. So Schop. is a realist (just like Witters seems to be in the > Tractatus) about truths that are not speakable in the way ordinary and > scientific truths are. > > > > > (It is not problems of natural science which have to be solved.) > > Note that this squares with Schop.'s "On Man's Need.." (vol.2) where Schop. > makes the point that the most complete science would be the most proper > statement of the problem of metaphysics. > > > > 6.432 > > > > How the world is, is completely indifferent for what is higher. God does > > not reveal himself in the world. > > > > 6.4321 > > > > The facts all belong only to the task and not to its performance. > > All of 'em? > > > > 6.44 > > > > Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is. > > > Seems consistent with Schop's "On Man's Need.." > > > > > 6.45 > > > > The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a > > limited whole. > > > > The feeling that the world is a limited whole is the mystical feeling. > > But a limited whole that endures without limit ought to be just as mystical > because just as, later, senseless. > > > > 6.5 > > > > For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be > > expressed. > > We can do a thought experiment like Witters is now doing such that we say > that the most complete science just _is_ the proper statement of the riddle. > > > > The riddle does not exist. > > Or not! > > > > > If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered. > > Call to all constructionists, Searle and Fodor fans, hell, even probably the > human population if everybody must think this way--assuming thinking this way > is not nonsense, as it later is called. > > > > 6.51 > > > > Scepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt > > where a question cannot be asked. > > But the sceptics can just ask about justification for any claim, including > the above. Either regress or circularity threatens (including the > circularity of Schopenhaurian fallibilism as expressed unequivocally in "On > Man's Need.."--perceptions justify perceptions, all of which are empirical > and not a priori). > > > > > For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where > > there is an answer, and this only where something can be said. > > How many times has the world in its entire range of possible worlds repeated > itself from any unique slice of its duration in x dimensions? > Perhaps there is no answer to this question, though it seems meaningful even > if we can give an a priori reason (ex hypothesi) why it is a question that > can't be answered. Maybe I just got way too mystical for my own good--I > liked the ambiguity here! > > > > 6.52 > > > > We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the > > problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is > > then no question left, and just this is the answer. > > This is an awesome piece of Witters pie; I think it tastes just right. > > > > > 6.521 > > > > The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this > > problem. > > > > (Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of > > life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?) > > Fair enough I guess. So far at least! > > > > > 6.522 > > > > There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical. > > > > 6.53 > > > > The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what > > can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that > > has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else > > wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had > > given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be > > unsatisfying to the > > other?he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him > > philosophy?but it would be the only strictly correct method. > > > I'm afraid that giving a meaning to certain signs hasn't been given a sense. > Senses, they say, are sometimes given to things after the gates close to the > public at Oxford, but Fodor suggests this to be a leg pull. > > > > 6.54 > > > > My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally > > recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on > > them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has > > climbed up on it.) > > > > He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. > > > > 7 > > > > > > Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. > > > On the cover of Jonathan Dancy's _Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology_: > > AVT TACE, > AVT LOQVERE MELIORA > SILENTIO > > Probably would have done better not write these gazillion responses, but who > can say really I would have been doing anything better if not? > > Cheers, > Budd >