[C] [Wittrs] Does The Tractatus Invalidate Itself?
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Hi Kirby
Let me address a couple of issues you and others have raised. The first is
whether the Tractatus contradicts or invalidates itself. Whether it is a kind
of nonsense. I think this point is probably the most misunderstood point about
the Tractatus. I see this mistake made over and over again, so I want to be
careful to lay it out. We begin, as we always should, with the Word ....
6.53 The right method in 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.
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.
What this says is that, to understand the Tractatus, one must have "an
awakening" -- a moment of clarity. The realm is more similar to prophesy than
debating norms. Let me put it to you very clearly: The Tractatus only
invalidates itself IF THE MACHINERY IS TRUE. This is the point that is never
understood. For the Tractatus to invalid itself, the PERSPECTIVE MUST CHANGE.
Imagine a philosopher and a monk. The monk says "only the true of heart can
see." He then says, "I am not yet true of heart." And philosopher says, "Then
how do you know who can see?" It would seem the philosopher had made a logical
point. Yet, there is the problem that if it is true that only the true of heart
can see, that, all of a sudden, what the monk says is quite meaningful. He
says, in effect, "I am cleaning myself," or, "soon I shall see." If true, this
completely rearranges the world and the perspective.
It would be like saying, "never say never" -- is that a contradiction? Only to
one who deploys a certain modus operandi. Same with a bumpersticker that said
"Don't use bumberstickers!"
So I would say that those who use debater's rules are saying something like
this. Arguments are like games. They are like Parliamentary procedure. To score
points, you have to assert premises that cannot knock each other down. If you
approach the Tractatus (or anything Wittgenstein wrote) with this mindset, you
might as well just read Karl Popper. I've said many times: Wittgenstein was far
too smart to have offered considerate views that are understood by the reader's
using either his own frame of reference or a debate score card. Wittgenstein
must be understood. He's a lot like Jesus in this regard.
The central point here is this: the seeing of the Tractatus as a kind of
aesthetic (as you put it) requires that you have climbed the mountain
(understood) and have thrown away the crutches that kept you from seeing it
that way. After you have relegated it to the realm of the aesthetic, you have
NO CHOICE but to relegate all else, except the propositions of natural science
and analytic props in their service. You can be comforted, however, in knowing,
however, that the problems of life and things which transcend this world
are only deficient IN THIS WORLD (in this state of life).
There is no contradiction here; there is only the arrangement of
the perspective that is required to see the view. One wants to say: you need
to be a monk of sorts.
The reason why the Tractatus is an ethical work is because it shows us how to
see the world rightly. (Keep in mind I am not a Tractarian; I'm only
appreciating it from the standpoint of being a Wittgenstein connoisseur).
Regards.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [C] [Wittrs] Does The Tractatus Invalidate Itself? - Sean Wilson
