[C] [Wittrs] !!!Re: Re: Metaphysical Versus Mystical
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:06:32 -0800 (PST)
.. here's the way I understand this. I think this is right. (Tell me, J, if you
agree):
1. "The unicorn is in the barn," is NOT nonsense, it is FALSE. And it is
therefore a proposition.
2. "The unicorn has two purple souls" is nonsense, but not because of arguments
about mixing grammars (mixing color words with spirit words, which is a red
herring here). It is nonsense because of the simple fact that: (a) the matter
cannot be pictured in the world; (b) it is not an analytic statement in service
of something picturable; and (c) does not, therefore, SAY anything. Furthermore
(more controversial): (d) it is not a matter that purports to reside in the
"netherworld" because the idea doesn't show or reveal itself to the form of
life [see below].
3. "God has unicorns in heaven." This is seemingly NOT nonsense. It is simply
unspeakable. This is because it comes from another realm (mystical). The same
is true of the statement, "Dance is beautiful," or "The good is being
happy."
However, note that the statement "God has unicorns in heaven" may not be given
the status of unspeakable merely because God as a subject matter is referring
to an extra-worldly place. It's not grammar that does it (the grammar of
"God."). What he means by the transcendental "showing" itself, I think, is
something that is deeply felt. And so if I say in despair, "I feel God" -- and
if I am devout about it -- I am saying something that has ground in my feeling.
This is important because feelings of this sort periodically show itself in the
form of life. But it does not ever render itself capable of being true or
false. (The feeling might be true or false, but not the statement it births.
For example, "I feel God" would be false where the person is lying and feels no
sensations. Maybe he is just play-acting. But where the person feels sensations
and attributes the affect to "God," whether God had been "it" would not be
something true or false).
Hence, this is how the transcendental shows itself, but cannot be the subject
of propositions. So if you say anything metaphysical from a sense of AFFECT
-- "dance is wonderful" -- you have not stated a proposition, but have talked
about something that shows itself in the form of life. The only confusing part
about this is why it requires silence ??!!! I guess because Wittgenstein is
trying to formulate a theory that says what proper speaking/thinking is. And
proper thinking is only yes/no stuff. And if you have feeling-affect
metaphysics -- the mystical -- you have something that simply cannot
be asserted.
The only other thing that I note with interest: under this view, it seems that
certain kinds of continental philosophy are put wholesale in the toilet, but
other kinds -- say, Kiekegaard -- are put in the closet. Do you agree, J? Plato
& Co get shown the trash can (regarding metaphysics), but Kiekegaard gets put
under the bed? (Of course, the bizarre thing is that Kierkegaard can't write
anything and you can't read it, at least not if either is doing philosophy
properly, which is the equivalent of thinking properly).
I don't think this system works!
(P.S. -- let me know if you think I have misunderstood)
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:
