Should we give up and just live our lives as best as we can or should we keep banging our heads against this now bloody wall that has claimed many, many victims? — Agent Smith
You're venturing into territory I'm at present not interested in. Not that it's wrong, it's just not my cup of tea. Let's just say I'm not in the mood. Thanks for sharing though. Good luck. — Agent Smith
"an ideology that relies on ultimate authority" — praxis
That's at odds with the notion, due in the main to Wittgenstein, that the really important stuff of ethics, aesthetics, of life, is non-propositional, the it is shown, not stated - something I thought you were down with. — Banno
As Ray Monk says in his superb biography Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius (1990), “the anti-metaphysical stance that united them [was] the basis for a kind of manifesto which was published under the title The Scientific View of the World: The Vienna Circle.” Yet as Wittgenstein himself protested again and again in the Tractatus, the propositions of natural science “have nothing to do with philosophy” (6.53); “Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences” (4.111); “It is not problems of natural science which have to be solved” (6.4312); “even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all” (6.52); “There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical” (6.522). None of these sayings could possibly be interpreted as the views of a man who had renounced metaphysics.
see my notes under "Moral considerations" in In praise of Atheism for a discussion of Abraham. The Knight of Faith is immoral. — Banno
This definition excludes those for whom religion has become mere habit.
Ritualistic habit with no thought of ideology or ultimate authority. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Yet as Wittgenstein himself protested again and again in the Tractatus, the propositions of natural science “have nothing to do with philosophy” (6.53); “Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences” (4.111); “It is not problems of natural science which have to be solved” (6.4312); “even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all”
Let's say I understand all of the arguments, because I do, frankly. — Constance
But Witt, like Kant, in denying metaphysics any meaning — Constance
I don’t think either of them did that though. More that they were scrupulous about the use of conceptual language for what is beyond its scope. — Wayfarer
Kant rejected the possibility of doing traditional metaphysics. — Janus
I'd go back a few more years, to Moore's Principia, to trace the notion of the good. Moore identifies it, but I think fails to justify it. I suspect Wittgenstein to have been influenced by Moore in this regard. It would be interesting to take Wittgenstein's treatment of Moore's "here is a hand" and apply it to Moore's Good. There are interesting parallels.
But yes, I agree with Wittgenstein. Where are we going? — Banno
problem. It's my little obsession. If ever you do find the mood for this, you might want to check out Simon Critchley's Little, Almost Nothing. He explores the impact of ethical nihilism — Constance
Kant rejected the possibility of doing traditional metaphysics.
— Janus
My friend, Kant is traditional metaphysics.
It's pertinent that those who emphasis Wittgenstein's rejection of metaphysical statements so often stop at the Tractatus. Yes, he showed that metaphysical statements are senseless, but then showed that metaphysics is more than just statements.
One can act in silence.
Wittgenstein did not put an end to metaphysics, so much as showed that it is better done in action than in philosophical speculation. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.