[Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Re: Metaphysical Versus Mystical
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:15:24 -0800 (PST)
J: I don't mean to abuse your presence here, but if you have time, tell me what
you think of this simile. I put it in the paper I am working on. It concerns
summarizing the essential idea that Wittgenstein has about LANGUAGE in the
tractatus. I think the simile is good and does the job. Looking to see how it
hits you:
Perhaps Wittgenstein’s early approach to language might be summarized with the
following simile. Imagine a blurry picture that did not “show” something that
could be verified with eyesight, but where the reality that is the subject of
the picture was not, in fact, blurred or obstructed. In other words, the
person’s picture was simply poor or ill-taken (and was not at attempt at
abstract art or something similar). In a certain sense, a picture of this sort
would be useless. It would be cast aside among the other pictures that show the
world properly. For early Wittgenstein, language has this sort of ethic.
Assertions in language that do not picture an otherwise clear reality are
meaningless, unless the reality itself is blurred, making the picture accurate,
but depicting only the mystical. Although an accurate picture of a blurred
nothing was not “meaningless” – because it showed its subject – it made no
sense to speak of it, because the
depiction was hidden from the start.
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:
