[C] [Wittrs] Metaphysical Versus Mystical
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:41:30 -0800 (PST)
I'm confused about an aspect of Wittgenstin's Tractarian thought. Particularly,
the part that concerns the status of mystical/metaphysical statements. I had
previously thought that there were two levels of "bastardized" sentences. There
was the nonsensical, and there was the stuff that had to be passed over in
silence (but could still be shown). I had thought that metaphysical assertions
were treated as "nonsense," but that mystical assertions required only
silence. In other words, one is sort of cast off to hell but the other is at
least allowed to remain in the intellectual closet (a sort of "don't-ask-don't
tell," or a purgatory, if you will).
But now that I review this again, I'm having trouble actually finding proof of
it in the text. Wittgenstein tells us in 6.53, that if someone wanted to say
something metaphysical, one should demonstrate that "he had given no meaning to
certain signs in his propositions." The suggestion is that metaphysical asserts
are meaningless. This is square with the intro, which says:
“This book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather – not to
thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to
thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should
therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought). .... The limit can,
therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the
limit will be simply nonsense” (27).
Now, then he says, Ethics is transcendental (6.421) and does not lie in the
world (which is why you can't talk about it). The solution of the riddle
of life in space and time lies outside space and time (6.4312). How the world
is, is completely indifferent for [God]. God does not reveal himself in the
world (6.432).
We can speak of how the world is, but not that it is. (6.44) . There is indeed
the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical. (6.522).
QUESTIONS:
1. Am I wrong to see "nonsense" as being something more severe than "the
unspeakable." (That there are two levels here, like felony and misdemeanor, or
1st degree and 2nd degree)? (gradation logic).
2. If I am not wrong, could someone please give me an example of a sentence
that is nonsense versus one that simply requires silence? This, in essence,
would be giving the difference between the mystical and the metaphysical, if
there is such a difference. (I could be wrong here too)
My sense would be this:
1. Mystical that requires silence: God exists. The Earth is Good. You should be
kind to one another.
2. Metaphysical that is nonsense: The chair has an essence [where that means
a spirity form]. Justice has a soul. Reality is in your head [where that means
the tree is imagined]. (Can you give me more examples?)
Much thanks.
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:
