[Wittrs] Re: [blog] Wittgenstein's Thoughts in 1937 About God & The Resurrection of Jesus
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:36:31 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> (Stuart)
>
> ... I'm inclined to say that there is absolutely nothing different from
> Wittgenstein's approach to religion than his approach to any other
> intellectual subject whatsoever. And that there is no difference between
> Wittgenstein the person and Wittgenstein the philosopher. And that those who
> ignore or segregate Wittgenstein the person tend not to have a good idea
> about Wittgenstein the philosopher.
>
> There was no thought, Stuart, that Wittgenstein entered either half-heartedly
> or without deep and reflecting intensity. There is no part of his mind that
> one can say "well he sure missed here." There are no thoughts that are
> ordinary sounding today that show "Wittgenstein sure was wrong." There are
> only people who don't understand him (which is understandable). Anything that
> motivated him to write about something intellectual was always preceded by
> something meaningful that had already occurred in him, intellectually.
>
Well it's always possible I don't understand him here. If I don't then it
follows I wouldn't know that I didn't because if I did I would have a better
understanding of what I am missing! But it is also at least possible that I do.
Your defense of him here strikes me as overkill. How do we know that, as you
say "There was no thought. . . that Wittgenstein entered either half-heartedly
or without deep and reflecting intensity. There is no part of his mind that one
can say 'well he sure missed here'."
Must we accept all of Wittgenstein if we admire his work in some areas? Must we
revere him and hold him secure from all criticism? Is it possible that he
couldn't have been mistaken on occasion? After all, even he acknowledged having
been wrong in his later period. Why should we be less critical of him than he
was himself?
> What he felt that day in 1937 -- the culmination of what he felt generally
> while in Norway that year (and the year before) -- was sincere, heartfelt,
> genuine, reflective, insightful, true, comprehensive and intense.
That may be true but how do we know? He himself often indulged in a bit of
literary self-flagellation, as we see in his personal jottings (Culture and
Value). Was he more wrong about himself than we are when we praise him without
stint?
> What Wittgenstein believed about religion is far more substantial than what
> Russell believed or what your internet-critic might have absorbed.
>
Again this could be so. But my own experience has prompted me to think that
that critic has made some very telling points here and is worth attending to.
But then, I could be as wrong as that fellow I suppose.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
