An unconscious desire would be some motivation you're not aware of that influences your behavior. The psychological explanation is that what we are conscious of is only the tip of the iceberg as to what actually causes our behavior. — Marchesk

There is no doubt that there are subconscious things that influence our behavior. However, I can't make any sense out of subconscious desires or beliefs. I either have a desire or I don't, and if I'm not aware of a desire how can it be a desire? If I have a desire for apple pie and I act on it, it's because I'm aware of the desire. If I'm not aware of it, then how can I act on it? Do I just start eating apple pie without knowing of the desire? Why am I eating apple pie? I don't know, it must be some desire in my subconscious. Moreover, if I'm not aware of the desire, how can I call it a desire? Maybe it's some other subconscious thing that's motivating me.

.

Don't you mean subconscious desires? And I'm not sure what that means, viz., to have unconscious desires, or subconscious desires. I think how people speak about our subconscious states is a bit weird. Isn't a desire by its very nature something you're aware of? What would it mean to have an unconscious desire? I have a desire for X, but I'm unaware of it. If I am aware of it, then it's not unconscious.

I'll change my name. X-)

.

.

Rules are for others, not for me.

.

.

I'm not sure what you expect me to do, and I'm not sure if there is an analogy here or not - maybe.

.

.

.

.

.

Here's the problem. Wittgenstein goes on to assert the validity of pictures depicting reality, without specifying what criteria are being met to accurately or correctly depict reality. It's not a matter of semantics as to what degree are we 'accurately' or 'correctly' depicting reality because if the assumption that either a picture is in accordance with reality (the state of affairs of being 'True') or is not in accordance with reality (the state of affairs of being 'False'), because we are already making the assumption that what we are saying is 'True' as opposed to being 'False' when talking about pictures of reality (or the representation of states of affairs in reality via the use of elementary propositions, eg. names). Otherwise, if we can't specify the meaning of "correctly" or "accurately" in this context, then sad to say the whole thing is nonsense. — Question

My understanding is that he does specify what criteria has to be met in order for a proposition to depict reality. And you're correct it's not a matter of semantics, it's in accordance with his understanding of how a proposition matches up one-to-one via names and objects. If the proposition's names match with the objects in reality, then you have a one-to-one correspondence, if not, then you have a false proposition. Correctly and accurately, as you state, is simply determined by the relationship between the proposition (names) and the world (objects).

Many or most claim that their sensory experiences are heightened, viz., their ability to see, hear, understand, etc. Also that it's this reality that seems dreamlike in comparison to the experiences they have in an NDE or a DMT experience. I compare it to waking from a dream, generally in a dream our experiences seem dumbed-down. When one has an NDE, this reality seems dumbed-down.

There is a metaphysical assumption lumped into that paragraph that plagues the Tractatus and for the matter the correspondence theory of truth. Namely, that to know if a picture is accurate in depicting reality, we already have to know what reality looks like. In other words, there is a certain unspecified set of criteria that has to be met for a picture to be in accordance with reality, which exhaustively can never be achieved (A central reason why Popper's Fallibilism will always be superior to Verificationism). Wittgenstein does not go into detail about this set of criteria, which is unfortunate. Perhaps, this is just a game of semantics over "correctly" or "accurately"; but, this is where I think Wittgenstein is lacking in his appeal to the scientific process or logical positivism, which would have made his Tractatus a lasting work of philosophy if it already is not one. — Question

Wittgenstein thinks there is a one-to-one correspondence between the smallest constituent parts of a propositions (names), and the smallest constituent parts of the world (viz., obects). This idea is repudiated in the PI; and you're right he does make metaphysical assumptions that aren't substantiated. He didn't think it was his job to provide examples of names or objects, but he wasn't unaware of the problem.

I do think there is something to the idea that propositions picture reality, or mirror reality. The problem is that philosophers are always trying to find a precise definition that explains what correspondence means, and precision is not always possible or needed. I think we generally understand what it means for a painting to picture reality, and in many of the same ways we generally understand what it means for a proposition to mirror reality. Is it a model that fits every instance of a proposition? No.

.

.

Thanks.

.

.

Is it possible to have consciousness if there is no external reality? I don't believe it is possible.

What does it mean to be conscious? Consciousness is synonymous with awareness. To be conscious is to be in a state of awareness. And in order to be aware there are two requirements: the being that is aware, and the subject of the awareness. To say that I am aware of the hands in front of me, is to acknowledge myself, and the existence of my hands.The same is true for anything else.

An idealist or a skeptic might claim that all we are aware of is experience. Thus being conscious only proves the reality of experience - not an external world. To that I would ask: what is experience? Again, I experience a hand in front of me. There are two requirements for that experience: the being that has the experience (me), and the object being experienced (my hands).

What about illusions and hallucinations? For example, you are conscious of an bent stick in water when there is no bent stick. To that I say that you are not conscious of any actual bent stick. What you are really conscious of is a mental image of a bent stick.

But couldn't everything be an illusion just like the bent stick in water? What if everything you see is only mental imagery? This brings me back yet again to duality of consciousness. What is an image? An image is a representation of a thing. In order for there to be an image there must be two things: the representation, and the thing that is being represented. In order to have a mental image of stick there must exist a stick somewhere in the past present, or future. — Purple Pond

I'll give my opinion for what it's worth. It's based on my studies of near death experiences, and what people have experienced while taking DMT. Reality seems to be far more fantastic than what most people believe, religious or otherwise. What seems to be at bottom of everything is a mind/s, or you could say consciousness. Consciousness probably gives rise to all reality. There seem to be different levels of consciousness, or higher and higher states of consciousness. Dreaming is an example of a low level of consciousness, nevertheless it's created by our minds. Waking reality is a higher state of reality, but it also seems to be created by our mind, or in conjunction with other minds. What people experience in near death experiences seems to be even a higher state of consciousness or awareness.

Everything seems to get back to the idea of some kind of oneness, but at the same time it seems to allow us to have our individuality, and yet remain connected to this oneness or consciousness. It's as though we are individuals amongst a sea of consciousness. But it's even more fantastic, I believe, than this. It seems that who we are is much greater than who we are as humans, i.e., we are beings of light that are having human experiences for a variety of reasons.

I know it sounds crazy. Our memories seem to be suppressed, just as our memories are suppressed in a dream state. The analogy between dreaming and waking and what we experience in higher states of consciousness is quite remarkable.

.

Wittgenstein: On Certainty Post #2

"If you do know that here is one hand [G.E. Moore, Proof of an External World], we'll grant you all the rest. When one says that such and such a proposition can't be proved, of course that does not mean that it can't be derived from other propositions; any proposition can be derived from other ones. But they may be no more certain than it is itself (OC, 1)."

So, Wittgenstein grants that if Moore does indeed know that he has a hand, then Moore's conclusion follows. The skeptic says that such a proposition can't be proved. This doesn't mean, though, that we can't derive them based on other propositions. However, the derivation may not be any stronger than the proposition we started with. There seems to be something foundational here, viz., that some propositions are foundational to our claims of knowledge or our claims of doubt. When you reach bedrock no part of the foundational structure is stronger.

"From it seeming to me--or to everyone--to be so, it doesn't follow that it is so. What we can ask is whether it can make sense to doubt it (OC, 2)."

The skeptic may have a point (although it may not be the point he/she is trying to make), that just because people (or Moore) say something is so, it doesn't follow that it is. However, Wittgenstein points out that what we need to ask, is whether the doubt makes sense. Doubting occurs in a language-game, and language-games have rules - later Wittgenstein will point out that a doubt that doubts everything is not a doubt.

Knowledge has to be demonstrated - whereas Moore seems to just state his propositions as facts, and this need to be shown or demonstrated in some way.

Wittgenstein: On Certainty Post #1

What follows is my own analysis of On Certainty, and this analysis is done with very little input from other philosophers. Hence, some of my thoughts may diverge or converge with others, but they are mine and I take responsibility for them. Hopefully, I will hit the mark from time-to-time, at least that is my goal. Maybe some of you will get something out of this, but I can tell you it takes a lot of work, and even then, it is easy to miss the point of Wittgenstein's thinking. I have read and re-read On Certainty many times, and each time I do, I learn something new.

Wittgenstein wrote On Certainty in response to Moore's papers, Proof of an External World and A Defense of Common Sense in which Moore lists a number of propositions that he claims to know with certainty. Propositions such as the following: "Here is one hand" and "There exists at present a living human body, which is my body (G.E. Moore, Philosophical Papers (1959), p. 1)." Moore continues to enumerate other propositions that he claims to know, with certainty, to be true. These propositions provide for Moore a proof of the external world, and as such, they supposedly form a buttress against the skeptic.

As we read On Certainty we note that it is not only Moore's claim to knowledge that Wittgenstein criticizes, specifically Moore's use of the word know, but he also critiques the skeptic, and their use of the word doubt. Wittgenstein's response to Moore's propositions is not entirely unsympathetic, although he argues that Moore's propositions do not accomplish what Moore thinks they do, viz., to provide a proof of the external world; which in turn is supposed to undermine the doubts of the skeptic. Moore's proof is supposed to show that the conclusion follows necessarily, and if it does, then the skeptic's doubts are supposed to vanish - at least in theory. The proof would look something like the following:

1) Moore has knowledge that he has two hands.

2) Moore makes the inference from the fact that he has two hands, to the conclusion that there exists an external world.

3) Hence, Moore knows that an external world exists.

Wittgenstein is challenging the first premise in the above argument; more specifically, he is challenging Moore's claim that he knows that he has hands. Moore demonstrated this by holding up one hand, and then the other.

Having knowledge of something presupposes that there are good reasons (at least in many cases), or at least some justification to believe it, but exactly what is it that Moore has knowledge of? He claims to have knowledge of the existence of his hands, but what would count as evidence for such a claim? Do I know that I have hands because I check to see if they are there every morning? Do I make a study of my hands, and thereby conclude that I do indeed have hands? I have knowledge of chemistry, physics, history, epistemology, and other subjects, and there are ways to confirm my knowledge. However, in our everyday lives do we need to confirm that we have hands? And, do we normally doubt such things?

From here I will examine On Certainty, sometimes line-by-line, other times a section at a time.

Introduction

It is important to understand the background of Wittgenstein's works in order to better understand his thinking. I am not going to be able to give those of you who are interested a complete background of what was going on in philosophy at the time, vis-a-vis Bertrand Russell, A. N. Whitehead, and Gottlob Frege. I will only give you bits and pieces, and hopefully this will inspire you to do your own thinking, and come to your own conclusions about the nature of Wittgenstein's work; and not only the nature of his work, but to come to understand how his thinking should influence the way we think about language, and in particular - propositions.

As much as I enjoy Wittgenstein's philosophy, and thinking about what he said concerning the nature of a proposition, it is important to understand that no philosopher no matter how brilliant - is without flaws. Hence, we have to be careful about getting tunnel vision, and we have to be careful about being to dogmatic about a certain philosopher, philosophy, or theory. That said, we can learn much about some of the problems of philosophy by spending some time trying to understand Wittgenstein's methods, and how these methods apply to philosophical thinking concerning the proposition. After all, propositions to philosophers, are like the hammer, saw, and nails to a carpenter.

I have come to the conclusion after reading several biographies and studying Wittgenstein on my own, that in the 20th century Wittgenstein is to philosophy, what Einstein is to physics; and just as a physicist would not neglect Einstein's theories, I think philosophers should also not neglect the study of Wittgenstein's methods. His writings are some of the most original in all of philosophy, and the power of his intellect is demonstrated not only in his philosophy, but in other areas of his life.

Wittgenstein was born in Vienna, and he was the youngest of eight children. He came from a very cultured and rich industrialist family. In fact Johannes Brahms would come to the Wittgenstein home and play his music. Ludwig was educated at home until the age of 14, when his parents decided to send the young Wittgenstein to Linz to prepare him in mathematics and the physical sciences. It seems that the young Wittgenstein wanted to study with the physicist Boltzmann, however Boltzmann died in 1906. After being educated in Linz for three years, he then went to Berlin to study mechanical engineering at the Technische Hochscule at Charlottenburg. After two years in Berlin he went to England where he became a research student of engineering at the University of Manchester. During this time he engaged in aeronautical research, and went from experimenting with kites, to the construction of a jet reaction propeller for aircraft. The design of the propeller was a mathematical endeavor, which eventually led the young Wittgenstein into pure mathematics, and then, to the foundation of mathematics. Apparently his interest in the foundation of mathematics led him to Russell and Whitehead's work, called the Principles of Mathematics. The Principles of Mathematics greatly affected the young Wittgenstein, and this interest led him to the works of Frege who was the founder of modern mathematical logic; so it was through Russell, Whitehead, and Frege's works that Wittgenstein entered into the study of philosophy.

According to G. H. Von Wright, Wittgenstein read Schopenhauer's Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, and this brought him face-to-face with Schopenhauer's idealism. Later Wittgenstein apparently abandoned his Schopenharuerian idealistic views in favor of Frege's conceptual realism; and it seems that after a talk with Frege, Wittgenstein decided to go to Cambridge and study philosophy with Russell (G. H. Von Wright, A Biographical Sketch, p. 6).

Both of the arguments used are examples of self-sealing or fallacious arguments, i.e., any counter-evidence in terms of evil or good is justified by saying it's not evil or good. It's like saying "All cars are blue," and someone's response is, as they point to a car, "But this car is yellow," then they respond, but that's not a car. Thus it's self-sealing because they will not admit to any counter-evidence, they simply deny it.

.

Thanks for the comments. I hope all of you are doing well. I'm currently living in Florida enjoying the warm weather. As some of you know I'm retired, so in my spare time I study Wittgenstein. Although, I've slowed down a bit in the past couple of years.

No matter how many times I edit these posts, I always find more mistakes.

Sam

.

.