HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 7, 2004 The following is a dialogue between a linguistic realist and a metaphysical idealist about the philosophies of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the idealist, Schopenhauer. Wittgenstein’s philosophy was circumscribed by his severe linguistic ideas, while Schopenhaur believed a malevolent ‘will’ controlled the universe. M.I.=METAPHYSICAL IDEALIST L.I.=LINGUISTIC IDEALIST M.I. How can something that cannot be said, be important to you? What is the content of that importance? What are mystical truths? We can’t even imagine what they are and how they are, since the entire world can only be depicted by science? What is then of utmost importance? If anything it must be meta-physical, but Wittgenstein didn't have the guts to say this. He was too much of a positivist to make this bold claim. What can be mystical in a world that is purely empiricial and phenomenal? How come you may talk about mystical? Maybe he believed in god, but he didn't say it; in his defence one may quote lines where he says how little can be elucidated on the grounds set by his philosophy and by the silence that overweighs it. But how can silence direct one’s life? How can it be mystical? Furthermore, what is the world in itself, if what we can say about it is only a symbolic representation in one symbolism or another? I like Wittgenstein, but he is a boy, not even puer senex; Schopenhauer is a different calibre; even if you claim he is a failure [ i dont' think he is ], he is a failure redeemed on the grounds of what he managed to notice against all the odds and on the grounds of what he wanted to achieve which is break down the riddle of what is the case. Wittgenstein’s remarks are juvenile and all too safe; they search for a method to wipe out problems, and he does wipe them out-- but only on the pages of his book. Wittgenstein shuts his eyes and claims ''now problems are gone''; but they are still there. L.R. Problem with metaphysics is that there is no agreement. You like what Schopenhauer said, but another doesn't. How do you prove what you say is right? You can't! In the end it depends on such intangibles as personal disposition, character, outlook on life, etc. Wittgenstein tried to get over this problem by saying that such statements are made, because the logic of the language is misunderstood. He gives as an example the same word being used as adjective, verb and noun, adverb, etc., but actually signifying something different--a different symbol-- in each case. His point is that in every day usage people use the same word in many different ways and this creates confusion in the logical foundations of language. I may say 'life' and mean something entirely different to you when you use the word. How, he would ask, can statements about 'life', 'god', 'love' mean anything when everyone is mixing up the terms and using them in different ways? In the end a religious or metaphysical truth ( for example) may or may not be true---but there is nothing in language that can verify or disprove it. Perhaps we just need to disagree about this. At any rate, I am glad that you are no longer maintaining that Witt. agreed with shopping hour about everything: that is in itself an advancement. My own point of view is that Wittgenstein has made metaphysical philosophers like Schopenhauer redundant. Redundant-- and what is left? Only the hoi polloi of enlightened linguists? He managed to hush up metaphysical thought but the questions remained; his solution to words in metaphysics is spectacular but not genuine; he wiped off words but not the reality behind questions that trigger these/such words; and he was evasive because he left a mystical layer; and what is more he deified this layer; schopenhauer’s mysticism was more honest as his universe is blind AND SENSLESS so devoid of any lofty mysticism; when one reads Wittgenstein one is almost likely to convert this is so theological; Wittgenstein wanted to let the man out of the prison of words; Schopenhauer would say the prison is inside us and is not caused by words, but by something he called will; he perceived existence as trap and asked why there is anything rather than nothing; Wittgenstein tried to see mystical in what is the case; this is too theological; I say Schopenhauer knew what Wittgenstein knew, but he didn't stop where Wittgenstein did as he saw no reason to stop at the obvious; you can pronounce anyone and anything redundant. You can find audience agreeing with you-- but this is not a method or pronouncement. L.I. What you say boils down to 'I am right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.' In the German philosophy dept you are visiting you will find far more philosophers influenced by witt. than shopping hour. You will have to tell them they are all wrong and you and other shopping hour pessimists have the only real truth!! In philosophical terms, you are swimming against the tide and have a point of view that is stuck in the 19th century. At least you have now broadened your knowledge in the sense that you no longer believe that witt. agreed with shopping hour...that is an achievement in itself. I feel that all meaningful languages need to conform with the internal logic of reality itself. It is insofar as they succeed in doing this that they are more or less successful. Thus, there is an internal logic to language used well in a humorous, tragic, musical or mathematical way. This is the fascination of meaningful language for me. Consequently, it is just as admirable to manifest the internal logic of humorous language (like the Marx brothers or Rossini in music) as it is to manifest the internal logic of tragic language ( like Shakespeare or Euripides). Life is a language game where one is more or less successful insofar as it is possible to make the logic of one's language relate to reality itself. Logic can also sometimes be inverted to achieve a particular affect (humor?)- -but that is another story. ------------ About the author Jon Aristides: Read, 'The Black Scarab of Amun-Ra'. Visit www.jon-aristides.com Email: aristidesjon2001@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
