[Wittrs] Re: [C] !!!Re: Re: Metaphysical Versus Mystical
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:59:50 -0800 (PST)
... here's the basic problem as i see it for Tractarian Wittgenstein. It's the
picture theory. Everything hinges upon it. This sounds cliche, but consider the
book's main point (as told by Wittgenstein)"
“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).
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).
Once you take away the picture theory, the whole thing changes, yet still stays
the same. That is, thinking/speaking are still balled up in important ways. You
still can't really split that nut well (other than for discreet purposes in
ordinary language). And because the new role for language is simply to be
another kind of behavior (meaning is use), now, everything can be said. There's
no requirement of silence. HOWEVER, that doesn't make everything that is said
WORTH saying. What determines this is grammar and the aesthetic in question.
In both worlds, language still bounds the form of life. And in both worlds, it
is language is still the focal point. Instead of language wedded to logic, it
is now wed to grammar. Once Wittgenstein saw that the aims of language were not
what he originally envisioned, the central tenets of the Tractatus had to
change, but the mission of it really stayed the same. It is almost as if the
Tractatus simply had to be recommissioned. It's the same project. It's the same
goal. It just now serves the new instruments (the new understanding).
Indeed, I see many things in the Tractatus that are still alive today. I see
conditions of assertability all over the place. And what I fundamentally see as
the major error is simply the role that language is thought to play, and the
resultant feature that logic had to play to keep language in order. One wants
to say: the Tractatus is really a prequel of sorts. It's like what the Hobbit
is to Lord of the Rings.
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:
