[C] [Wittrs] Re: Re: !!!Re: Re: Metaphysical Versus Mystical
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:50:55 -0800
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<< >>
> Think about that. In order to know what can't be thought, we would have to be
> able to entertain it. We can't do that. Therefore, we can only draw the limit
> in language. KEY PREMISE: Because language's purpose is to mirror the world,
> it's only proper use is to picture reality (or perform logic upon picturing
> statements).
Following along here...
When we get to the PI, language's purpose is no longer to mirror the
world. That's a descriptive purpose, pictures matching facts, but
what about commands in battle, what about jokes?
The idea that language boils down to "propositions" is gone as well.
That one might cast every utterance in propositional form is merely to
conceal deep differences (in usage) behind a thin veneer (the mask of
"philosophy").
Going back to the Tractatus: calling something "meaningless" or
"nonsensical" is derogatory by connotation (not by denotation).
The world of facts has no good or bad, no intrinsic better or worse,
so on the "positivist" side of the fence, there's no call for valuing
"meaningful" any higher than "meaningless".
I regard the Tractatus as a kind of banishing of ethics and aesthetics
to the an extra-factual realm, but then by its own reasoning, so is
the Tractatus a work about ethics and aesthetics (he equates the two).
The Tractatus is nonsense in other words, by LW's own reasoning.
Wittgenstein is less the positivist and more the mystic because "that
which it makes no sense to speak about" ends up having high ethical
value, whereas "that which is the case" is meaningless in a different
way: is simply what's so (is the case) and who cares about that?
(Answer: the self, but then "caring" is not a
The Tractatus is self-referential in saying: really I can't be
sensibly telling you any of this, as "the relationship of logic to the
world" is outside of what it's sensible to talk about. The Tractatus
is a mission impossible, set to self destruct about five minutes after
you "get it".
I'm not thinking these views are unique to me or unheard of in the
vast secondary literature already out there. Goes with the "waxing
and waning" of the world, which I think connects to this idea of
"sin". As we sin, the aesthetic worth of our world drains away. Sin
may be collective, a kind of mob rule.
I would then link "sin" and the existentialist "nausea", also
Kierkegaard's "dread". A waning world. Bucky Fuller: "utopia or
oblivion". The movie 'Jarhead' is apropos, as it explicitly links to
existentialism while showing the dark (dreadful, nauseating) face of
war.
Anyway, basta (enough). Back to my other studies...
Kirby
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
