Having faith is not smart.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

bsfree
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 05:36 pm
@Pyrrho,
Scotty, you say "Ok then I see your point about references, but I find it hard to see your choice of reference points as common to me... that is the hard part of this all I suppose..."

My reference point was the universe, that is common to us all.
How each of us feels about what our relationship is to the universe is colored by the interpersonal and societal relationships that shape our perception.
The universe begat us, not the other way around. I think it appropriate to allow the universe to tell us why, by "listening".
I put forward the points I did because that's what I got from the "conversation".
Individual results may vary.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 09:03 pm
@bsfree,
bsfree;128705 wrote:
Scotty, you say "Ok then I see your point about references, but I find it hard to see your choice of reference points as common to me... that is the hard part of this all I suppose..."

My reference point was the universe, that is common to us all.
How each of us feels about what our relationship is to the universe is colored by the interpersonal and societal relationships that shape our perception.
The universe begat us, not the other way around. I think it appropriate to allow the universe to tell us why, by "listening".
I put forward the points I did because that's what I got from the "conversation".
Individual results may vary.


The reference point was not the universe, the reference point was somethig you claim to be true about the universe. That is where the idea of common ground breaks down.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 06:17 am
@Pyrrho,
Faith as it applies to the OP of not being smart to some degree is accurate in that the smarter some are they feel the more self reliant they are and they need no faith to function. They have faith in themselves so to speak. That would be all well and good if that person knew EVERYTHING. Unfortunately no one can make that claim. We know enough to make us afraid of that....we DON'T know. If we could just have more faith in others; and of course if we don't find it in others, or if we just had the time to understand everything?

We have established that nothing just goes away. Matter is here to stay; it changes but nevertheless it's here and will always be here and we are a part of that matter and probably the most important part. Fear is what must go.

In a world that survives by being afraid, that's almost inconceivable of what that would be like especially for the self-reliant person who has the knowledge to survive in that fearful realm. What is it that makes one afraid? NOT BEING, that's what! That scares the "hell" INTO us not out of us, ha! Fear is a bummer. My signature sums it up perfectly.

In religious circles it is dismissed by the notion of being "born again". Now that can be misconstrued many ways but in essence in means never not being and if you are good, you will continue to be. Now if interpreted properly all qualify; we're just at odds with what "good" is, ha! What is good for one is not necessarily good for another and that can really screw up that not so "golden rule". Some suffer and seem to think suffering is a part of life. I can only hope they don't do unto me what has been done unto them so I suffer too! Yuk and then some. "I suffered to learn and you must too"? That's BS. "I had to follow the rules and pay the price, you must too". That's kinda the way it is and were going downhill fast because of it.

To understand faith can only come from one who is not afraid. Faith is what is left when fear is not there! Now I am not talking about blind stupidity, but fear of "not being" of which there is no such thing. Of course I can't prove that in such a way the will satisfy those who think differently so I don't try or argue about it or at least try not to anyway.

We always were and will always be and those that do not understand that will be afraid and adhere to "to be" and that is the antithesis of faith. This comes from a deeper thoughts and I promised myself I would not go there but I think it is time to offer it for a test run, ha! Let's see what kind of mileage it will offer.

We are a part of one. We always were and will always be. This is life is overwhelming as to what we were, but less than what we are to become. Give "no being" little regard and then you will know what "to be" is and what the benefits of faith are all about. Religion has got it a bit twisted up and confusing is all; but it is offering the same thing.

Coming to grips with death has a lot to do with it and just realizing it's inevitability and then just forgetting about it. Can anyone do that? Easier said than done I know; been there done that and somehow I knew when I thought I was going to die and just dismissed it, a transformation took place that is hard to explain to one who has never been there. Some will say they are concerned with others and want to protect them but one must understand, others are no different than you. If you over protect them they become dependent on you and without you they become afraid and so and so on and that is why we mourn so. Fear is contagious.

When I realized I wasn't going to die, just yet, I began, what you might call, to start "thinking straight". In other words my mind kinda took on a life of it own and did my thinking for me. Confusing? Yeah, I know. It was for me at first.

I began to pay attention to the world around me much more than I ever had before without consciously realizing it and was able to just naturally adapt to it without being afraid of it in any context.

Now here's the hard part. How can one be so unafraid in a world that is so afraid? That is what faith is and it has varying degrees. Like "walking in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil" and such. Death is what makes us afraid and there are those who profit from that fear.............big time. If it weren't so, then religion would not exist. All would naturally adapt and cohesion would naturally exist. But we didn't know that. That's why we have life as it is along with the turmoil, chaos and confusion that is so present in all we do. This is not something all can realize overnight and it will take time to understand it in such a way so we can eliminate all that causes fear.

This is not to say all are so afraid, for those of faith are not, when in company of like individuals or souls as it were; but that is not as it is all the time. When it is like that all the time there will be not need for such religious structures and they will dissolve on their own. There will be no need for them.

Faith is freedom. It is being at peace and "in tune" with your immediate environment and acclimating to it rather than efforting to change it to suit you. When one does that perception changes and one stops looking and begins to see. The senses become more acute and there is a sense of confidence that surrounds you no matter what environment you find yourself in as you travel; that is if you are not afraid to travel away from that in which you are so familiar with. Something I have observed many are afraid to do even in this day and age. Faith allows you to do that.

There is no place any different than another if your senses are in tune. If not one will venture into "danger" zones or those areas that should be posted "keep out". Now we are M.A.D. and what is holding us together is mutually assured destruction and the problem with that is there are those who think the world, or those "bad people" should be destroyed for us to evolve and that is a really scary thought. What is a "bad person"? A person who is riddled with fear. We caused that in our ignorance and our desire and greed "to be"; no matter what.

Now what does that mean? "In tune", resonance; a vibration (frequency) of all that surrounds you and seeing it, feeling it, in contact with it in such away that you will align with that part of it that is complimentary to you with a barrier that protects you from that which might cause you harm or confusion. Is the empirical? No, I am afraid not but not being afraid and having faith is what allows this to happen.

Judeo/Christian ethic call it a "surrender" or giving up. I know words are confusing and many pick apart words to stress a particular view point and that is what instills argument and many will not be ready to surrender anything. We are a possessive lot and we will realize one day nothing is "for keeps", ha! Not even you because even you get an overhaul in death and a better you emerges, provided you have something to offer that is in tune with the universe's ongoing continuum. All that is the universe is reflective in all we do and know as human beings. It could be that we are the center of the universe and it's most magnificent achievement thus far! Perhaps it does revolve around us and we are it's center?????????? We have a desire to go into space so we can find evidence of us.......there, ha!.

Now it's difficult to put a definition to faith. Really it is what is left when fear is no longer there. It's like you become a part of something that will protect you no matter what situation you find yourself in. It's like the mind pulls all the strings rather than you trying to control it and forcing yourself of what to think so you will not be afraid; the mind does it for you! I know for some that went over like a lead balloon, but like I said it's hard to explain. Some heads are harder than others.

We have phrases and explanations of this in our language we call "peace of mind", "clarity of thought" and we think we have control over that and the truth is WE DON'T; and the more we do think that, the more we confuse thinking and we get bogged down in so much thought that just shouldn't be there that we "disturb" that mind and it's innate function. In other words when fear is not instilled to force one to learn to survive one learns what is complimentary to them easily and is a part of their continuum as well as the One that is all............................we call God.

Now not everyone is the same and what the mind is capable of "thinking" varies from one person to the other. We get into trouble when we try to persuade others to think like us and that is what cause chaos and conflict. When if we all had faith, or lack of fear, there would be complimentary action between us. Again, I know it is confusing and that is because some of you think too damn much, ha! You smart people, ha!

Being what others want you to be and that's depressing because you can't be anything other than what you are. What kind of reality will ensue is not known but it will be better than this one. We are in one hell of a mess and the sad part is we have become accustom to it. "You see if you are like me then I know you and how you think and then I don't have to be afraid of you. Let me mold you to what I want you to be so I won't be afraid". That's the way it is now. No one can do that; no one!

Faith is not judging an individual by his appearance and seeing the heart and mind of the individual beneath and allow that person to be who they are so they are not afraid to be that. Of course many will find it difficult in this reality to envision that because that is not the way it was for them and will quote erroneous analogies, circumstances and scenarios that begin with "what if", and that is their attempt to maintain the status quo and validate their own defense mechanisms that allow them to survive in this fearful world. They are comfortable with being afraid and have walls that protect them from it. Those walls in so protecting also keep life out too.

Why do so many do that? This reality thrives on fear and we expend a lot of energy and thought protecting ourselves in a world that has all we need to live and we concentrate on preventing death; an inevitability most just don't want to deal with and do all they can to ignore it as if we can figure out a way to "live forever". Hell, that's not living, that just thinking about ways not to die. That's what phobias are made of.

Perhaps we will live long if we just don't think about "not living". You know, 'one day at a time" and focusing on the moment at hand and then the mind will not be so perplexed in extraneous thought imposed on it and it can deal with matters in the present. It, "the mind" knows all, ha! And it does. It knows what is good for you and that you impose on it that is not and it can help you if you just "let it". Now that's "God in motion". When the mind is at peace the body follows suit and the "brain" can do it's job which is aligning the two so they can work complimentary or complementary with each other. Science has been trying to do that for centuries and it is just a natural phenomenon when fear is not present in all it's names and manifestations. Fear is the devil if you want to call him that.

You can't be afraid or that "alignment of mind and body" will never happen. That's the vast domain of the universe "working for you" with what it knows that is good for you and you alone in complimentary action with all that surrounds you no matter what situation you find yourself in. Uni-Verse-One way communication! It to it's various parts. And if you allow it you will come to find you will not be in those situations that cause you to be afraid. That's of your own doing and a consequence of fear based thinking.

Death is the fly in the ointment and it just does not compute and when we allow it in our computations we reach erroneous results that are just as circular as our understanding of what terminal is or finite is. We can't think "definitely" for nothing is. Life is an ongoing occurrence and when we think it is finite, it is reflective in all our thinking and we start thinking to much and we begin thinking WRONG and lose any quality to what life is. We don't enjoy it because we spend so much thought on losing it and the pattern is repeated.

This is not to say we will not die. Of course we will. Does that mean we are nothing? Now it could be that is true. Here we have a choice and another William kinda nailed it.."..to be or not to be"; 6 simple little words that sum up all the plagues that have ever befallen us. We want to be and some will go to extraordinary lengths to do just that with little regard to the quality of that being.

You know I have often though that is what doctors, scientists and philosophers are for; to keep us alive until we can reach this realization. Perhaps that why they have worked so hard to keep me alive to bring this wisdom to you. Who knows? Does that sound condescending, I hope not for I know what I offer will not be heard by some and I didn't come here to agree with all. That's futile and stifles the mind. But there are some who will understand what I am offering and it will be complimentary/complementary with what that think and I can only hope that it will allow them to tie up some loose ends in their thinking. If I can do that then it has all been worth it.

I am not in a rush to understand everything. When we have faith we will know all we need to know and we will help each other find the answers to all those questions that have evaded us since our beginning.......whenever that was. If there ever was such a time? Since I don't believe in the finiteness of death, I don't concern myself with our beginning either. One can get really sidetracked in all that the past has in it. The Earth tries to bury her past, but we keep digging it up. Ha! And as I have said before many of those holes are our own premature graves.

So is having faith not being smart? Yeah, I would have to agree if that intelligence is such that it gives one a comfort surviving in fear. Frankly, I would much rather "live" with faith, than constantly trying to outsmart fear. Somehow I know the universe protects me and I find a much comfort in that. I will never instill fear in another nor will I promote or take advantage of others who know no better. :a-ok:

William
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 09:09 am
@William,
William;128940 wrote:
Faith as it applies to the OP of not being smart to some degree is accurate in that the smarter some are they feel the more self reliant they are and they need no faith to function. They have faith in themselves so to speak. That would be all well and good if that person knew EVERYTHING. Unfortunately no one can make that claim. We know enough to make us afraid of that....we DON'T know. If we could just have more faith in others; and of course if we don't find it in others, or if we just had the time to understand everything?


I only got through a quarter of your post (then decided it wouldn't be worth it to respond to the entire gargantuan post).

However, I think there is a distinction between having faith in one's self and shedding faith. It is much more wise, in my opinion, to admit uncertainty and build a foundation with that in mind.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 10:09 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;128967 wrote:
I only got through a quarter of your post (then decided it wouldn't be worth it to respond to the entire gargantuan post).


Hello Scotty, Ha, I know what you mean and it was not meant for you to do so. I type until I quit, ha! Most is just to help others think and possibly inspire much simpler analysis. It's difficult to do by taking short cuts and using words most don't understand. Sorry for being so wordy. It's all I know.

Scottydamion;128967 wrote:
However, I think there is a distinction between having faith in one's self and shedding faith. It is much more wise, in my opinion, to admit uncertainty and build a foundation with that in mind.


Shedding faith? Do you mean we lose it the smarter we are? There are many smart people of faith who don't regard themselves as smart, who never go to church; just as there are those smart people who have a hard time understanding what faith is. I agree one must have faith in ones self if they are afraid of others. That is easily understood. That's what self reliance is. It just a shame, I think, for one to have to resort to being so lonely in order to survive in this world. Uncertainty makes a weak foundation. There is much not known....................to be sure! If we only realized that.

William
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 10:30 am
@William,
William;128992 wrote:
Shedding faith? Do you mean we lose it the smarter we are?


No, I left smart out of the sentence on purpose. Wisdom is what I was alluding to.

Quote:
There are many smart people of faith who don't regard themselves as smart, who never go to church; just as there are those smart people who have a hard time understanding what faith is. I agree one must have faith in ones self if they are afraid of others. That is easily understood. That's what self reliance is. It just a shame, I think, for one to have to resort to being so lonely in order to survive in this world.


I think you are using self reliance a little vaguely here, because in some senses being self reliant is a good thing, but I'd agree that being anti-social is a bad thing.

Quote:
Uncertainty makes a weak foundation. There is much not known....................to be sure! If we only realized that.


"Uncertainty makes a weak foundation", exactly, that is what we need because "there is much not known", too many people think they know more than they possibly could.
 
bsfree
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 10:38 am
@Pyrrho,
William, I read your post, and if I understand correctly what you mean about faith then I agree, it is not born of intellectual belief, it comes from allowing oneself to be conduit for the forces that created us, and fear does not exist in such faith.
Half a century ago I was given the last rights, but instead lived to witness them being given to my father. Death does color the picture many have of life with fear, it should not, and in truth never was meant to.
It would be redunant to quote you repeatedly and only add "I hear where you're coming from". Therefore I will only say thank you for your post.
 
JPhil
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 04:43 pm
@Scottydamion,
Well you are correect about we can have knowledge without the knowledge of spirituality. Yet life is built up on sprituality, it is the driving force of all beings, yet though I may not have evidence spirituality, I inevitably know I have it. As I said we have a spirit but no evidence therefore this requires faith.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 09:05 pm
@JPhil,
JPhil;129157 wrote:
Well you are correect about we can have knowledge without the knowledge of spirituality. Yet life is built up on sprituality, it is the driving force of all beings, yet though I may not have evidence spirituality, I inevitably know I have it. As I said we have a spirit but no evidence therefore this requires faith.


You are simply making claims with nothing to back them up. If I take your word for it that you know there is spirituality, then to me there is spirituality, but naturally I'm not going to simply take your word for it. There is a reason there is a branch of philosophy called the theory of knowledge, and it's to determine what justifies beliefs. If you have no evidence, just some intuitive hunch, then I highly doubt you are justified.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:45 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;128638 wrote:
Oh, you know, just the voices in my head.


Ha!

Well I thought about what I said, as there was something obviously sticky about it. I figured out pretty quickly that I had drawn some false conclusion in my long post- namely, that the utterances of tautologies and contradictions shows or says something about the one speaking. This cannot be the case, at least in so far as Wittgenstein is concerned.

To speak of tautologies, like the name of the Lord as Moses first heard it (I AM THAT I AM), is nonsense. The denial of tautologies is a contradiction.

But what does all this mean? It means we can quote Wittgenstein: "Here we are, at the limits of language!"

...

The greatest obvious conclusion here is that religion&ethics can not be adequately spoken of, let alone argued over.

...

Back to the OP, in regards to ignorance of faith: If makes so sense to speak of doubt where one cannot doubt. If the world is everything that is the case, a tautology, there is no sense in doubting it.

A tautologie is part of the logical scaffolding. Existence exists, I AM THAT I AM, it is what it is, God created the Heavens and the Earth, Christ died for my sins, ...

The only thoughts which could be considered a prior true would be ones whose possibility was enough for verification. If it is impossible to speak something illogical (tautolgy and contradiction are a part of logic), then does not the possibility of tautologies guarantee their existence?

One can no more doubt a tautology than a contradiction.

And we all know I can write 'this sentence is false'.

...

Whew, now that is a bit more revolutionary. Smile:whistling:
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 12:05 pm
@jack phil,
jack;129361 wrote:
Ha!
But what does all this mean? It means we can quote Wittgenstein: "Here we are, at the limits of language!"


Lovely quote, the rest is a load of crap! Just kidding, but I find I have little to add... maybe the more one tries to pass the limits of language, the harder they are to understand? lol
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 01:43 pm
@jack phil,
jack;129361 wrote:
Ha!
To speak of tautologies, like the name of the Lord as Moses first heard it (I AM THAT I AM), is nonsense.


I disagree. Such a tautology implies something. Nonsense is relative to interpretation?

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 02:46 PM ----------

jack;129361 wrote:
I figured out pretty quickly that I had drawn some false conclusion in my long post- namely, that the utterances of tautologies and contradictions shows or says something about the one speaking. This cannot be the case, at least in so far as Wittgenstein is concerned.


I may of course be wrong, but I feel like the later Wittgenstein would not assent to this. According to my interpretation of the later Wittgenstein, linguistic philosophy cannot take a transcendental standpoint as to what language is capable of.

I do agree with you, generally, about this applying to the early Wittgenstein.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 02:51 PM ----------

Scottydamion;129364 wrote:
Lovely quote, the rest is a load of crap! Just kidding, but I find I have little to add... maybe the more one tries to pass the limits of language, the harder they are to understand? lol


I ask sincerely. Can we use language to express the limits of language? Can we make statements about language as if it were a bounded whole?

I'm influenced, I admit, by Rorty's interpretation of Wittgenstein, which points toward a more holistic view of language only making sense as part of social practice.

To understand a phrase in a language is to be able to substitute suitable marks and noises for that phrase. And so on. It's my interpretation that Wittgenstein eventually saw the limitations of his own earlier picture theory of language.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 02:54 PM ----------

Krumple;128432 wrote:
Yeah perhaps, but I would never call love a god because my take on love is rather um negative. I couldn't imagine a god having so many flaws, yep I said flaws. Some view love as being highest, I consider it differently.


I'm sure different folks mean different things by "God is Love," but a radical interpretation would mean something like "Love is God." It's a radical twist on God, that reduces God to an emotion. The statement would only be potent for someone who had a more "superstitious" view of God.
 
bsfree
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:43 pm
@Pyrrho,
Faith is the bond of self to the whole through no other mechanism than truth.
Faith is "knowing" without dissection of truth.
Truth is always received, never given, and promotes understanding.

No one can "give" truth to another; that would be instilling belief.
What one believes will last as long as the belief is held.
Truth, like love, cannot be held, only felt.

The mind is capable of formulating and receiving thoughts.
When the mind is used to formulate thoughts it is operating in the realm of memories, and referencing the knowledge those memories contain.
The memory of how to build a bridge is important, but not as important as the truth of why the bridge was built.

What this means is that if the memory is forgotten of why the knowledge was used, all that is left is the framework of that knowledge, whether or not the truth of its purpose is still valid.

To use "knowledge" to find purpose is to build a framework of references that are potentially infinite, because everything points to the truth that it came from.

Truth is "in=finite," meaning it is of itself and encompasses all.
To use knowledge to discover who we are is futile because we are already.
It is like concentrating on the mechanics of the birth process and disregarding the purpose of the birth.
"Why we are" is a direct reflection of the truth of Being: Consciousness.

It is knowledge that has brought every democracy, idealism and every other "ism" into being, all in the name of truth, but all in name only.

Truth cannot be brought to or imposed on 7 billion humans through knowledge, because the framework of references will translate to 7 billion options of how that knowledge is perceived, the results of which we experience via the political, business and religious effects on all life today. It is the proverbial tower of Babel.

Knowledge is a necessary tool, without which we could not survive; this is true.
But, when it perpetuates its own purpose over that of the truth that spawned it, the consequences become an insurmountable obstacle to harmony.

When the mind receives feelings outside of conscious formulation, it is being inspired to receive thoughts of the truth of its' purpose.
Many will dismiss this is as mystical mumbo jumbo, choosing instead to cling to the life preservers of knowledge.
To believe that truth will forgive not "knowing" what has always been in front of our eyes is akin to believing the knowledge that the Titanic could not sink was truth.

I am not here to promote my own "agenda" of how anyone else should live their life.
I am here to promote the only assets we have in our existence: Earth, all other life and human consciousness.
The faith I feel is born of and exists in these assets, and the universe that bore them.
The harmonious use of our assets is beyond present imagination.
I know the only way to this harmony is through you, me and us.

If my tuppence worth can help fund this movement then I will have done the best I can for others, our assets and myself.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:49 pm
@bsfree,
bsfree;129430 wrote:
Faith is the bond of self to the whole through no other mechanism than truth.
Faith is "knowing" without dissection of truth.
Truth is always received, never given, and promotes understanding.

No one can "give" truth to another; that would be instilling belief.
What one believes will last as long as the belief is held.
Truth, like love, cannot be held, only felt.


Falsehood can also be felt... to me you are evangelizing because I see no desire for discourse.
 
bsfree
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:26 pm
@Pyrrho,
Yes, I can see what you mean Scottydamion, if I'm correct in imagining you're referring to the falsehood you feel in response to my words, and "preaching" without inviting response.
I would like to have discourse that can be built on common ground, but mine does not appear to be "common" enough at this time.
I have no clue how to effect anyone other than myself, but myself told me to share what I feel anyway in the hopes it may mean something to someone.
Perhaps you're right and I should not be here, maybe I mistook the answers the faith question was looking for.
In any event I don't think there is anything else I can add to what I feel, so my time here is done .
All the best to everyone
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:53 pm
@bsfree,
bsfree;129442 wrote:
Yes, I can see what you mean Scottydamion, if I'm correct in imagining you're referring to the falsehood you feel in response to my words, and "preaching" without inviting response.
I would like to have discourse that can be built on common ground, but mine does not appear to be "common" enough at this time.
I have no clue how to effect anyone other than myself, but myself told me to share what I feel anyway in the hopes it may mean something to someone.
Perhaps you're right and I should not be here, maybe I mistook the answers the faith question was looking for.
In any event I don't think there is anything else I can add to what I feel, so my time here is done .
All the best to everyone


I'm sorry if I have discouraged you... I assumed you had your mind made up by what you said.

But common ground is not found in the display of one's beliefs, but in the discussion of them, in my opinion.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 11:31 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;129364 wrote:
Lovely quote, the rest is a load of crap! Just kidding, but I find I have little to add... maybe the more one tries to pass the limits of language, the harder they are to understand? lol


I think the nature of the TLP is struck upon by Wittgenstein in his Lecture on Ethics. His closing remarks concern the ineffability of 'religious experience' (if I can paraphrase the experiences he is speaking of as such), and his quick dismissal of any NAME that we might give them. Furthermore, he says it is still nonsense to say one is contemplating a tautology.

Reconstructo wrote:

I disagree. Such a tautology implies something. Nonsense is relative to interpretation?


See above. It doesn't follow that there is a God from tautologies, however, it is easy to say such religious language is tautological. Or more aptly put, Descartes is sitting duck for logicians.

And besides, a person could be lying. Hitler comes to mind. A man told me Obama was his Savior and not Jesus Christ... a few months back.

I have surely defended the position you are advocating, but I think more problems are solved if we recognize that something must be shown, not said.

Quote:
I may of course be wrong, but I feel like the later Wittgenstein would not assent to this. According to my interpretation of the later Wittgenstein, linguistic philosophy cannot take a transcendental standpoint as to what language is capable of.

I do agree with you, generally, about this applying to the early Wittgenstein.


I don't make an early-late distinction with W. But I have yet to finish the PI. I quit in Part II to read W more chronologically, as the PR is such an obvious followup to the TLP.

I know not how to respond to your comment, but I think the TLP is not so much interested in narrowing language as expanding it, and, as a side effect, realizing a lot of philosophical troubles are caused by misunderstanding the logic of our language. In this regard, it is pretty dang impossible to distinguish one tautology from another. Herein lies the nonsense of describing and comparing tautologies.

...

There is a lot to say on this matter, and I feel like I am fumbling around a bit.

Whereof one cannot speak ,....

Thanks, you two.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 08:52 pm
@jack phil,
jack;129683 wrote:

I know not how to respond to your comment, but I think the TLP is not so much interested in narrowing language as expanding it, and, as a side effect, realizing a lot of philosophical troubles are caused by misunderstanding the logic of our language. In this regard, it is pretty dang impossible to distinguish one tautology from another. Herein lies the nonsense of describing and comparing tautologies.

Thanks for your response. The TLP is a complicated text. I suppose it has been read in different ways. In my experience, Wittgenstein has been invoked by some as a closer of doors and by others as an opener. I find Richard Rorty quite persuasive and personally value the openness of language, no matter Wittgenstein's actual position, if such an "actual" position is even attainable.

As for tautologies, I would say that they must be interpreted in context. If a person says "I am what I am" or "I'm me," the context is invaluable in determining that strange bird known as "meaning."

I certainly enjoy your perspective, as I am a fan of Wittgenstein who cannot claim to be an expert.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 01:16 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129795 wrote:
Thanks for your response. The TLP is a complicated text. I suppose it has been read in different ways. In my experience, Wittgenstein has been invoked by some as a closer of doors and by others as an opener. I find Richard Rorty quite persuasive and personally value the openness of language, no matter Wittgenstein's actual position, if such an "actual" position is even attainable.

As for tautologies, I would say that they must be interpreted in context. If a person says "I am what I am" or "I'm me," the context is invaluable in determining that strange bird known as "meaning."

I certainly enjoy your perspective, as I am a fan of Wittgenstein who cannot claim to be an expert.


I have not read Rorty, though I have browsed through his table of contents in 'the mirror of reality' [is that the title?]. If you could add more, I would like to hear. I have seen a number of brief attacks on his philosophy, but never a book review or whatnot.

The TLP begins with a dedication to W's dear friend and a motto from some German. I don't know the exact line, as it is not even translated in the TLP, but something like: whatever rumbles in a man's head, what he is certain of can be expressed in three words.

I think W may have 'I am I' in mind, but I am uncertain. But supposing that to be the case, your 'I am what I am' is essentially similar. However, I think W argues {in the TLP and elsewhere] that the sense of I can be ascertained grammatically. And he makes some remarks on solipsism right before the 6th proposition that 'I' means more than the body and soul or mind. He clarifies this a bit in latter lectures, but says there is also the use of 'I' as the metaphysical subject.

Which is not entirely crazy, if people can say things like 'I am American' or 'I am communist' and etc.

I cannot say whether he is internalizing the metaphysical or externalizing the 'self', though I guess it doesn't really matter.

I don't know if I can claim to be an expert, but I try. Anyhow, we are in the same reading group for the TLP. It should be fun.

Regards,
J
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 03:50 pm
@jack phil,
jack;130015 wrote:

I cannot say whether he is internalizing the metaphysical or externalizing the 'self', though I guess it doesn't really matter.


This touches that "limit of the self" issue in TLP. He shows that solipsism connects with naive realism. Something of that.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 04:55 PM ----------

jack;130015 wrote:
I have not read Rorty, though I have browsed through his table of contents in 'the mirror of reality' [is that the title?]. If you could add more, I would like to hear. I have seen a number of brief attacks on his philosophy, but never a book review or whatnot.


Rorty is indeed subject to attack. But he doesn't regard philosophy as argumentation. He views the self as a network of beliefs and desires. He ignores or rejects the correspondence theory of truth. He seeks to dissolve most or all of the traditional dichotomies. He's very much a holist, but an extremely slippery, erudite, and ironic holist. He sees philosophy as a literary genre. He supports the notion that closure is impossible, or at least undesirable. The Mirror of Nature is a great book, but his Essays are better. Also Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is a great synopsis. I found the following online. It's a pretty good intro.



I noted that when seeking to deflate the apocalyptic tendencies of deconstruction, Rorty insisted that we increasingly understand ourselves as resting on a fountain of puns and metaphors. But I also noted that there seems to be an ongoing tendency, in Rorty's universe, for once-molten metaphors to "objectify" or congeal and for human beings, in their metaphysical necrophilia, to
[CENTER]― 242 ―[/CENTER]
worship the corpses. So we need to keep showing up and undermining that still-metaphysical tendency. But do the particular metaphors that have in fact resulted-become ours, us-have to be the objects of such misplaced worship? What if we were to experience them as nothing more than what they are, as nothing but history? We would no longer worship them, certainly, but we have seen that new preoccupations intrude as metaphysics fades, as we escape even its shadow.
Fundamental to Rorty's response was the suffocating experience, explored first by Nietzsche, of being always already caught up in a particular history-determined by a past not chosen and confined to a present that is nothing but the haphazard resultant of the whole of that past. With the reduction to history, the anxiety of influence that Bloom explored with respect to poetry becomes general, because everything is wound around metaphor coming to us from a past that threatens our autonomy.[54]
Thus Rorty, still following Bloom, advocated the actively "strong misreadings" that yield new metaphors; the alternative, merely to "read," is to be confined to the particular line of the actual, with the present seemingly encompassing the embryo of any future. More specifically, to seek "truth" as opposed to a disruptive irony is to remain subservient to metaphors now congealed. Our tendency to worship corpses is the other side of the tendency of particularizing history to ensnare us, limiting what we can say, do, even be, in ways we have not chosen. So the premium is on irony, even quirkiness, as opposed to truth or reconnection.
Nothing but History



---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 04:56 PM ----------

jack;130015 wrote:

The TLP begins with a dedication to W's dear friend and a motto from some German. I don't know the exact line, as it is not even translated in the TLP, but something like: whatever rumbles in a man's head, what he is certain of can be expressed in three words.


Ezra Pound said a man could put all he learned in his life on half a page. Poetry as Density.


Thanks,
s
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 11:55:36