Hi Guys
This is your space to comment, complain, question or criticise any aspect relating to the unit. It will only work if you use it so please feel free to contribute. Don't worry if you think your question sounds stupid. If you are thinking it, the chances are that lots of other students do too. I will be checking this blog regularly and attempting to offer my answers but the idea is really that this should be a student-led project.
Anyway, to kick off the discussion, thanks very much to the two presenters last night. I thought the issues came across fairly clearly despite a couple of detours. Has anyone had any thoughts since on the question of the relationship between the natural and the social sciences and Husserl's contribution to the debate?
Regards,
Richard
5 comments:
Yesterday's about Wittgenstein discussion was very interesting.
Several of the propositions were reminding me of Ecclesiates, the most philosophical book in the Bible.
On the drive home, I imagined that little Luddie must have been a smart boy from an early age, and that, coming from a wealthy jewish family, he must have gone to the Schul in Vienna to get educated into the Torah.
Ecclesiastes, or Qoholeth in Hebrew, speaks in a similar way as Wittgenstein about issues like ethics and theology. And I hope here that if I overstep the mark, that Liz Boase will set me straight!
In comparison to prroposition 6.432, Qoholeth also argues that a distant God rules a strange universe. We can never know God's ways, as they are inscrutible to us (Ecc 8: 10, 14, 17). And that it is clear from what happens in the world, that God does not particularly care about humans. Bad things happens to good as well as to bad people.
During his book Qoholeth also speaks in riddles and paradoxes and often contradicts himself. Perhaps this could be seen in comparison with Wittgenstein's proposition 6.5.
In regard to 6.51, about skepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical. Again, Qoholeth is definitely skeptical, but at the same affirms that humans should try and seek wisdom. Some similarity in the statements?
Also, Qoholeth, like Wittgenstein, does not like chatter. All chatter is vanity, and when faced with the unknown one should use as little words as possible. But what if we take this silence thing too far?
Any ideas?
Also, have a look at this.
From a movie about Wittgenstein made in 1989.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk
Some more language games from Wittgenstein.
Proposition 7, the famous one.
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Why didn't he just say: of what we cannot speak we must be silent. Why must we pass over?
Wittgenstein knows the power of language. He knows the nature of language as a game.
Pass over? Is there perhaps any connection here with Easter or the Jewish Pesach or Passover?
Is there some kind of religious connection with the silence we are supposed to observe? What kind of exodus do we have to take into account?
Hi Tom
Interesting points. Wittgenstein came from a family which had converted to Catholicism, so as far as I am aware he had no formal training in Judaism. He also made a few disparaging remarks about Jews!
I do think that whatever theology there is in the Tractatus does resemble a Jewish or Islamic one more than a modern 'Jesus is my buddy' version.
Thanks Richard for that info.
On to the next point.
In relation to propositions 6.373 and 6.374, as there is no connection between "my will" and "the world", could it be said that Wittgenstein is a dualist? If the will is transcendental, what is the will made of? What kind of "stuff" is the will? How do the logical positivists deal with this?
Post a Comment