2nd Reading & Response
The more I read of Wittengstien the less respect I gain for him as a philospher, he has essentially come up with a clever language and framework for saying nothing. In all honesty I do feel sorry for him, while I thought that in the former readings perhaps there was something I was not understanding,
I am quite saddened to read his works, he essentially has never claimed anything nor has he said anyhting new without discounting it completely. It is frustrating to read his thought patterns as they are quite circular, except instead of comming around full-swing to completion, often at the end they are trapped in contradiction. I am at a loss to even comprehend how his work was able to win a doctorate in phliosophy.
The following are my comments on points 5.6 – 7 of the Tractus
5.6 – What kind of language? Which one? What about all the non-literate languages? Art, Music, love. If our limits are set by our language does this then mean that we should learn more languages in order to increase our understanding of language and question and fact?
6.4 – What about 4.06? propositions can be true or false, these are values, the contradiction is obvious furthermore, if the proposition has no value does it sit in between true and false? Then it is not knowledge, then truly as propositions exist they are valueless.
6.41 – Value has value by definition, the author has made a mistake in using the same word he is trying to define in his definiion.
6.421 – What do ethics transcend exactly? space? time? Most definatly not culture, as ethics exist inside of a culture to determine right or wrong.
– what is meant by aesthetics? The definition is completely different from ethics, aesthetics is the study of beuty.
6.43 – Language has these limits with regards to anything: good and evil, hot or cold, fat or skinny, bright or dark etc… what is so special about good or bad? The limit is language not unquantifiable attributes such as good or bad.
6.4311 – This is so absurd I don’t know where to begin. Eternity is outside time, or transcendant of time, death and life and the present do not transcend time, how can one simply declare that both of these dimensions can exist inside of one-another
6.4312 – If the answer is outside space and time then Wittgenstien cannot claim that eternal life is in the present because ‘time’ by definition has a tense.
6.432 – Heretic. You cannot claim that God exists with boundaries it is contradictory to core theism.
6.431 – What is the context to this statment? Furthermore it might be suggested that a ‘problem’ and its ‘solution’ are more a question of ethics. Problems and Solutions are not questions of epistemology at least in regards to their evaluation.
6.44 – Is Wittgenstien saying that the world does not exist?
6.45 – What is ‘sub specie aeterni’
6.5 – This statement is no true, take the simple question: “How did you feel when your father died?” I have stated a question where by the respondant may not have adequate language to answer with but I have still asked the question.
6.51 – to deny the skeptic is to deny the epistemologist.
6.52 – who is ‘we’? What is ‘the answer’ For someone declares that riddles don’t exist (6.5). Wittgenstien certainly knows how to speak in them.
6.522 – Cannot language be developed to express these ‘mystical things’? Furthermore I would question these ‘mystical things’ and humorously suggest that they might be God in the world.
6.53 & 7 – Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.