Sure in that sense, Science is not much different from Mysticism. There are myriads of questions Science cannot answer.

For instance, they still don't know what is the origin of life, just lots of hypotheses and theories. Blackholes and galaxies? No one can even go near to them. Only see them through the telescopes. Big Bangs? How do you know? Were you there when the bang happened? No !! In all these cases, it is just full of speculations not much different from esoteric religions. :)

You are welcome my friend :) Ok that's fair enough.But please remember not all scientific knowledge is true.  It starts with premises or hypotheses which may be true or false.  Then they observe the phenomenon, to find the evidence to support their hypotheses.  If it does support, then they make it as theories.

But the experiments and observations are never conclusive or verifiable beyond doubt. There is always a chance that it may be not true, and get falsified. Because no one can experiment and observe the results under every possible different circumstances in the universe. And the affairs in the universe are all bound to change through time.

Anyhow, then new theories replace the old ones.  This is science.  I feel that there are many people who blindly trust anything if there is label called "Science".  Philosophers know about this, and they tend to be suspicious of all scientific knowledge. "Philosophy of Science" is a subject which explains on this topic throughly.

I am not without interest, just not familiar with those, so to what extent that informed or shaped his insights I can’t say. — Antony Nickles

I have a copy of "The Oxford Handbook of Wittgenstein", and one of the chapter is about "Wittgenstein on Religious Belief" by Stephen Mulhall.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-wittgenstein-9780199287505?cc=gb&lang=en&#

I have also met a guy who was reading Witt for exclusively analysing the Religious Literatures such as The Bible and the ancient Buddhist scriptures under Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Religion and Logic. He was a lecturer in Religious Dept. of University in Japan. Not sure if he finished his thesis. But I have seen his book published and being sold in Amazon Japan in Japanese language.

Wittgenstein and religion

This might give an idea of the discussions surrounding Wittgenstein and god. — Banno

Thanks for the link. :up: :pray:

I don’t have anything more on his thoughts on God. — Antony Nickles

Could it be the case that Wittgenstein's ideas on God have little philosophical significance, or you personally are not interested in his God topic?

Thank you for your recommendation.  I would love to read and learn about all those subjects, but my interest in reading only lies in Philosophy and Psychology, and it is enough to fill my spare time.

Yes, they are all different subjects, and you might already know their topics, and methods of studying are totally different from each other.  For instance, if you read and study Physics, you would need all the laboratory instruments costing tens of thousands of pounds. 

For instance, if you are researching radio waves, and its characteristics under solar storms etc, then you would need radio frequency receivers, transmitters, chokes, dummy loads, SWR meters, generators and various types of antennas installed and set up for your studies and research.

Philosophy doesn't need all these mechanical electrical instruments, because as you might already know, it uses reasoning, logic and common sense, and it is interested in analysing whether someone's claims are making sense, logical, valid, reasonable or even commonsensical.

Philosophy is not about blindly and pointlessly agreeing with someone's illogical, unreasonable and delusional claims or ideas.  It is not about showering people with sugar coated consolations and positive encouragement for life, as some people do.

Philosophy is about seeking logical, reasonable and objectively true solutions to the problems by critical analysis.

I would recommend you to read "The Central Questions of Philosophy" written by A.J. Ayer on this particular topic.

I think aphorism is a misscharacterization. They are not meant as individual (independent) statements of something he is arguing is true. He does make statements, but they are speculative (like a hypothesis) with the purpose of your coming to the same conclusion on your own, — Antony Nickles

I have come across some commentators sayings on Wittgenstein's writing being aphoristic, which I agreed with after reading some of his original texts such as TLP and PI.

The first sentence of TLP starts with a declarative type of sentence "The world is all that is the case."
and then it goes on, "The world is the totality of facts, not of things." They are quite unusual writing styles for philosophical texts, which can only be described as aphoristic.

Of course Witt makes his points in his writings, and it is not all 100% aphoristic writing style which fills his books, but we cannot help, but notice the writing style throughout his main books both in TLP and PI.

He is trying to find out why we want feelings to be objects. He does not address the argument for the existence of God other than looking at the same desire of why Descartes looked to God for the purpose of having something fixed, universal, perfect, as Wittgenstein equates with purity as a goal and standard for knowledge. — Antony Nickles

Witt didn't seem deny the existence of God from this passage in TLP.

"6.432 How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world." - TLP

I am not sure which God he was referring to here, but it seems he is admitting the existence of God, and also seems saying God cannot be known by human reason or perception. Could it be the similar stance as Kant's concept of God, which belongs to Thing-In-Itself in CPR?

I would have thought your genes may control your personality, traits, looks and bodily immunities, but not your momentary actions, speeches, and daily life patterns.

You may argue or presuppose under the same genes of the other beings or species for your determinism, which sounds too far fetched anyway,  but you cannot push that presupposition to even to the same brain structure and content.  Even in the case of brain transplant of you with some other person or other species, it is doubtful if your actions, speeches or decisions will be dictated by the content of the transplanted brain. Anyhow this is too sci fi topic, which I am not even familiar or knowledgeable with. I am only an amateur hobby philosophy reader, not a biologist, ecologist or definitely NOT a sci fi expert.

It would be like saying, if you had a dog's body, dog's genes, and dog's brain, then youI would bark rather than talk.  You would be far superior in smelling things than humans.  Of course, you would, but where is philosophical point in those sayings?

1 and 2 sounds like the biological or ecological topics. 3 4 5 6 sounds like the magical abilities only possible in the Harry Potter movies.

You were still free that you woke up this morning, powered on your computer or phone, visited the forum, read posts, and wrote your replies. No one or no genes or anything forced you to do so.

You could have done other things such as gone shopping, meeting your friends, going for a drive, taking out all your books from the shelves and organising them or reading them. But you chose to do otherwise. You have been free. You are free.

ok, let us suppose still you insist you are not free for the reasons you stated above. But would you not admit that there are huge part of your life which is free? Such as drinking water instead of beer, going for a walk instead of sleep etc etc? In that case should you not then say, at least some part of your life is free, while you feel the other part is not? Would it not be more accurate claim? Outright claiming life is deterministic sounds somewhat confused inaccurate and untrue claim.

There is part of your life which is deterministic, but there is also part which free. This seems more accurate claim and truth.

Is it not the case of your free choice to be unfree with all the reasons you stated, why you are not free, therefore that was your free choice not to be free? You are still free.

Both TLP and PI seems written in richly aphoristic style, which attract broad range of different interpretations by the academics and readers.

What is his view on mental objects such as fear, anger, joy, hope, doubt ...etc? What is his idea on existence of God?

If you had dolphine's genes, then you wouldn't be sitting in your room in front of your PC or on the phone typing in English, asking these questions.  And because you would not have human reasoning and linguistic abilities, you wouldn't be asking about free will questions.  Maybe you could be reasoning in your head about these questions, but still you wouldn't be typing the questions in English.

And of course, you could make lots and lots of presumptions, inferences and imaginations on the metamorphic illusions, but but but you will know yourself, that it is a necessity in your reality that you cannot transform physically and biologically into any one of those beings no matter how much you would wish to.

You will be forever you, and you know it well for truth, that you cannot change that. This is a determinism and necessity.

But for you to make simple daily life decisions such as going for a walk, or sleeping, listening to music or reading, you only need your dispositional decision in your mind. And in that regard, you are FREE.  Death of all life cycles is determined. No one can change that.

So life has deterministic, and also free aspects.  Life is not an atomic object. 

In the case of AI machines, would it not be the state of "powered ON" being them conscious in the human terms?
My PC has ON OFF and also SLEEP options. It only works when it is "ON".

You simply decide to go for a walk or sleep etc. You don't need the other constraints and variables for making these simple decisions.

Please explain in detail with evidence and proof, why you need the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences to go for a walk or sleep etc.

In the words of Sun Tzu from The Art of War: “Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.” — RussellA

Witty is an interesting and significant philosopher, because the issues he had raised were compelling and important.

I used to read Witty with minor interest, peripheral significance, and not a great deal. But I will be reading him with more attention and focus.

He definitely has intriguing points, views and arguments in his philosophy . His weakness seems come from the inconsistency between TLP and PI, and his concept of words, objects and the world.

What does he say about God and religion? I am going to read about that topic in the near future.

Everyone will die sometime in their life, so it is determined. But they can go for a walk, or read, or listen to music or have a nap. They are free.

Having been  born, living and dying inevitable deaths are universal fate and destiny no life can escape from.  Only in that sense, life is deterministic.

But the content of all the lives are unique, random, irreplaceable, non exchangeable, unrepeatable and free.  In that sense all life is both deterministic and free in nature.

Being an agnostic is perfectly fine, if that is the stance you have decided to take. Nothing wrong with that, especially from a philosophical point of view.

And of course, by all means you could keep on inferring what would be the case, had you had those people's, animals, aliens genes, DNAs, fates ... etc even in another galaxies or possible worlds or parallel universes. But you should also ask, if you could really take on their genes, DNAs and fates and their lives in your real life?

Remember, every life is unique, and only valid for once in a lifetime, so there is no definition of individual life. The only definition of life in general terms is, that it is an entity born, lives and destined to die sometime. The content of your life is irreplaceable and unique, and all the individual lives since the start of the universe have been the same - unique, irreplaceable and never to be repeated.

The great analytic philosophy vs continental philosophy divide.

My favourite city is Paris, and we always stay near the Left Bank, so perhaps I should be moving away from Wittgenstein and towards Sartre. — RussellA

Analytic philosophy is still great for critical exercises. But if you are moving towards the continental philosophy, then Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Sartre or even Deleuze are all great philosophers.

:up:

but not internal sensations such as fear, anger, etc. — RussellA

In that case, would you not feel that referentialism and logical positivism are blind system? I mean, the world is not just material, but there are also mental sides too.

You talked about Five apples and Give me a slab scenario in the posts.  Before you and I sit down face to face in between the actual apples and slabs, they are just mental objects whilst we talking about them.  I have no clue what apples and which slab you are referring to.

The PI is opposed to Referentialism, whereby words refer to objects in the world. To be an object existing in the world in space and time it must have some kind of essence. — RussellA

Does the "object" also include mental objects such as fear, anger, pain, joy and hope ...etc? Or does it just mean material objects in the external world?

Perhaps Corvus is correct and Nikki is just innocently posting philosophical human dilemmas on a philosophy site to help him/her/them complete a philosophy course. :halo: — universeness

Yeah, I don't presume or even imagine anyone with real personal crisis of their life would come to Philosophy Forum, and cry out seeking for help. :)

No problems mate. They are all great philosophers. Their importance in the history of philosophy comes from not the truths they concluded, but from the significant issues they raised, and how they explained the issues with their supporting arguments.

After reading them, whoever you decide to judge as right, is right.

You are welcome my friend. :)  If I quickly and roughly try to summarise their points,

Descarte - Truth and  knowledge comes from your mind, and knowledge is innate. He was a rationalist.

Hume - Truth and Knowledge comes from your experience of external object and world via impressions and ideas. He was an empiricist.

Kant - Knowledge comes from outside from your sensation, but it needs concepts in your mind to be able to know and judge what they are. Intuition and imagination combines the externally given sense data with the internal concepts, and allow knowledge and judgments possible.

Some knowledge is never known to the human mind e.g. God, Freedom and Afterlife etc etc. They are outside of human knowability.  For knowledge of God, the concept is postulated rather than perceived or sensed i.e. it is the world of faith and postulation. Kant didn't deny the existence of God, Freedom and Afterlife etc. He limited the power of human reason and knowability, saying they are in the world of faith and belief, and their existence is postulated rather than reasoned, sensed or perceived.

Kant tried to combine the rationalist and empiricist and come to a more complete system of epistemology.

If you want to know more about religious knowledge and God, then I would start with Kierkegaard.

If you are still interested on the topics of Truth and Knowledge, I would recommend you to read :)
Rene Descartes (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/)
David Hume (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/)
Immanuel Kant (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/)

Yes, exactly. It was Socrates who said it. The dictum is recorded in Plato's Apology. — javi2541997

I feel Socrates was right in saying that. He was the first philosopher in history who turned the philosophical focus into human life i.e. what is life, what is better life, and how one should live, from the wonders of the universe topics which were philosophical trends at the time.

I read the OP as just a topic of Philosophy of Life rather than some outcry of personal problems.

Humans have reasoning abilities as well as highly developed linguistic capabilities (which no other species have), hence they do think about life and death, and ask these questions, and philosophers debate on the topic from speculating attitudes.

Was it Socrates who said, "Unexamined life is not worth living.", and "the ultimate goal of human existence is not just to live but to live a good, meaningful and virtuous life."?

We typically sleep for around 6 hours every day, but I wonder what happens to reality when we sleep. Do we wake up in the moment after we fall asleep / lose consciousness? — Cidat

Reality keeps on existing as it has been. To the sleeper, the reality disappears, as he/she enters either into a dreaming state or total black out (unconscious state).

When waking up, the sleeper's memory will bring the person back into the normal reality that he has been sleeping, not newly born or thrown into the world at that moment.

Even death has a bit of romantic vibes. — javi2541997

"Death does not concern us, because while we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist.” - Epicurus :cool:

Then it's the wrong question. — Vera Mont

What does life mean? That something is not inanimate or dead. That's what the word 'life' means. The property of aliveness itself cannot be interpreted as information. We are not mere symbols to convey a message to some external intelligence. — Vera Mont

The OP seems well aware of what life means.  It seems clear what he seeks is the significance, purpose or meaningfulness of life.

Questions on the meaning of life have been asked millions of times from ancient times by the Stoics, philosophers of Religion and Existentialism, and it is a perfectly good philosophy topic.

It is natural and human thing to do for mature adult people to ask such questions at some point in their lives, have thoughts or debates on the topic without having to feel stress, guilt or negativity.

Seeking the meaning of life is not replacing life with meanings, but trying to find what makes life happy and worthwhile.

Some people are content with just living, and some seek the meaning of life. Each to their own.
Meaning of life doesn't have to be something grandiose or drastically dramatic.

Anything, no matter how trivial, one finds happy doing, makes them absorbed, totally oblivious of life and the world could be good enough meaning of life.

Read somewhere, meaning of life is to find / create meaning of life. :cool:

Thank you.

Yes, it is just my own opinion :)

There is no meaning of life. — niki wonoto

Meaning of life is to be searched / created by each individual to suit their own desire, purpose and taste in life. :)

What about when dreaming? — bert1

When dreaming being unconscious, the person cannot communicate with others, hence cannot be conscious.

Now apply this to consciousness. I have accused two things of being conscious. A rock and a human being. What are we going to look for as evidence of consciousness in (a) a rock, and (b) a human? — bert1

For an object to be conscious, it has to be

1. a living - such as a person, dog, cat, monkey ... etc. Non living objects like machines cannot be conscious, even if it behaves intelligently, acts, and works like a conscious being.

2. must be able to communicate intelligently with another conscious being via behaviour (intelligent animals like monkeys, dogs and cats) or language (in case of human being),

3. respond to environmental changes / demands, or carry out their act of biological demands for their survival. (such as wild animals hunting for survival, birds feeding their chicks etc)

Therefore rocks are definitely not conscious, while most humans are. Some humans are not conscious (those in comma, sleeping or fainted drugged or drunk to unconscious state)