Guest guest Posted February 19, 2004 Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 Pete: << Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and explanations are circular. Even an unambiguous word like hello has a different meaning if uttered when meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in the middle of a conversation. >> Wittgenstein, to my mind, is the greatest analyical philosopher in the history of Occidental philosophy. I am not a Wittgenstein scholar -- as I expect Greg is -- but I have read much of his work, but only the " later " (post-Tractatus) Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein cannot be read " serially " like most writers. Rather one must read and digest in cyclic repetition until one starts to " get " what he is saying. His insights are truly revolutionary. I studied Wittgenstein very carefully in my early 20's. A mentor-friend with a PhD in Philosophy pointed me to W's book " Philosophical Investigations " and said, " Read that book! " as it there were no book that could be more important. It took some time before I finally started to " get " what he was saying. I expect that many people never do. What I gained from Wittgenstein is laid into the bedrock of how I think about language and its use. Wittgenstein's writings are like a collage of short segments. Typically each one is separately numbered. He didn't write cohesive " papers " on a topic. His style of analysis/expression was *implicit* rather than explicit. Usually the short segments (typically the length of a couple of paras) flow in a kind of sequence in that they pertain to a given topic. There is no overall explicit structure to his " remarks " . He makes the reader think more than any other writer I know. I will be referring to only the " later " Wittgenstein here (pronounced 'Vitgenstein' btw). Wiggenstein does say that the meaning of a word is its " use " . This means that you cannot understand a word out of context. There is no " absolute meaning " of a word. There is an irony to the way you have quoted Wittgenstein here, as you have: 1) taken him out of context, and 2) you have spoken as if distilling him into a few statements. This is utterly non- Wittgenstinian. You simply cannot make a few quotes of succint summary statements and declare that such is the philosoply of Wittgenstein. You can't even write a paper and say as much, really. That is something he himself was never able to do. In this regard there is an interesting analogy between Wittgenstein and Krishnamurti. Both would abhor their perspective being summarized even in a book, let alone in a paper, let alone in a few quotes. Both were Socratic in their teaching method. To me the essential idea from Wittgenstein is that philosophical statements almost always entail a confusion in the use of words. The problem is not in the ideas, typically, but in a confused use of words which makes the ideas meaningless. If someone makes a statement, such as: " There is no self, " then the tendency on the part of most everybody is to consider whether the statement is true or false. But if there is a confusion in the use of terms then the statement is neither true nor false, it is *meaningless*. In other words, logic is not really the binary " toy logic " of clasical formal logic. Further, to make such a statement such as " There is no self " , on a list such as this is virtually guaranteed to be out of context. And if out of context it is inherently meaningless (or so I will argue). One of the BIG MISTAKES that people make regarding Nisargadatta, for example, is that they take statements made in a *particular context* in dialog with a *particular person*, and try to treat that statement as some kind of universal truth. The notion that there is no such thing as universal absolute truths in the sense of a statement taken as truth is one that is not simple to convery fully and lucidly without considerable care and development. Bill - " pete seesaw " <seesaw1us <advaitatozen > Cc: <nisargadatta > Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:32 AM Wittgenstein's Equivocations > Here are a few favorite Wittgenstein equivocations: > > What is the sum of 2 plus apples? > She sat down grammatically. > I rode my bicycle in French. > The number seven hurts. > I have N friends and 3N+ 5= 0 > > Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and explanations are circular. > Even an unambiguous word like hello has a different meaning if uttered when > meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in the middle of a conversation. > > Strangely (for a philosopher), he claimed that language is accurate only when used colloquially, that when used philosophically propositions are nonsense, or even jokes. > > The meaning of 'I'm hungry. " is unequivocal. Everyone understands the meaning of 'I', > and hunger as stated, but in the proposition, " I know Truth. " the meaning is so obscure > that it requires three branches of philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology and Logic to > try to explain the meaning of those words, and still no consensus is achieved. > > Take this Zen exchange which carries the same sentiment of the futility of words > in conveying reality. > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > Master: " Ask me tomorrow, it's too cloudy today. " > > Next day. > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > Master: " Zen is Zen. " > > Pete > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Wittgenstein is merely a footnote to Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Bill Rishel <plexus wrote:Pete: << Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and explanations are circular. Even an unambiguous word like hello has a different meaning if uttered when meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in the middle of a conversation. >> Wittgenstein, to my mind, is the greatest analyical philosopher in the history of Occidental philosophy. I am not a Wittgenstein scholar -- as I expect Greg is -- but I have read much of his work, but only the " later " (post-Tractatus) Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein cannot be read " serially " like most writers. Rather one must read and digest in cyclic repetition until one starts to " get " what he is saying. His insights are truly revolutionary. I studied Wittgenstein very carefully in my early 20's. A mentor-friend with a PhD in Philosophy pointed me to W's book " Philosophical Investigations " and said, " Read that book! " as it there were no book that could be more important. It took some time before I finally started to " get " what he was saying. I expect that many people never do. What I gained from Wittgenstein is laid into the bedrock of how I think about language and its use. Wittgenstein's writings are like a collage of short segments. Typically each one is separately numbered. He didn't write cohesive " papers " on a topic. His style of analysis/expression was *implicit* rather than explicit. Usually the short segments (typically the length of a couple of paras) flow in a kind of sequence in that they pertain to a given topic. There is no overall explicit structure to his " remarks " . He makes the reader think more than any other writer I know. I will be referring to only the " later " Wittgenstein here (pronounced 'Vitgenstein' btw). Wiggenstein does say that the meaning of a word is its " use " . This means that you cannot understand a word out of context. There is no " absolute meaning " of a word. There is an irony to the way you have quoted Wittgenstein here, as you have: 1) taken him out of context, and 2) you have spoken as if distilling him into a few statements. This is utterly non- Wittgenstinian. You simply cannot make a few quotes of succint summary statements and declare that such is the philosoply of Wittgenstein. You can't even write a paper and say as much, really. That is something he himself was never able to do. In this regard there is an interesting analogy between Wittgenstein and Krishnamurti. Both would abhor their perspective being summarized even in a book, let alone in a paper, let alone in a few quotes. Both were Socratic in their teaching method. To me the essential idea from Wittgenstein is that philosophical statements almost always entail a confusion in the use of words. The problem is not in the ideas, typically, but in a confused use of words which makes the ideas meaningless. If someone makes a statement, such as: " There is no self, " then the tendency on the part of most everybody is to consider whether the statement is true or false. But if there is a confusion in the use of terms then the statement is neither true nor false, it is *meaningless*. In other words, logic is not really the binary " toy logic " of clasical formal logic. Further, to make such a statement such as " There is no self " , on a list such as this is virtually guaranteed to be out of context. And if out of context it is inherently meaningless (or so I will argue). One of the BIG MISTAKES that people make regarding Nisargadatta, for example, is that they take statements made in a *particular context* in dialog with a *particular person*, and try to treat that statement as some kind of universal truth. The notion that there is no such thing as universal absolute truths in the sense of a statement taken as truth is one that is not simple to convery fully and lucidly without considerable care and development. Bill - " pete seesaw " <seesaw1us <advaitatozen > Cc: <nisargadatta > Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:32 AM Wittgenstein's Equivocations > Here are a few favorite Wittgenstein equivocations: > > What is the sum of 2 plus apples? > She sat down grammatically. > I rode my bicycle in French. > The number seven hurts. > I have N friends and 3N+ 5= 0 > > Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and explanations are circular. > Even an unambiguous word like hello has a different meaning if uttered when > meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in the middle of a conversation. > > Strangely (for a philosopher), he claimed that language is accurate only when used colloquially, that when used philosophically propositions are nonsense, or even jokes. > > The meaning of 'I'm hungry. " is unequivocal. Everyone understands the meaning of 'I', > and hunger as stated, but in the proposition, " I know Truth. " the meaning is so obscure > that it requires three branches of philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology and Logic to > try to explain the meaning of those words, and still no consensus is achieved. > > Take this Zen exchange which carries the same sentiment of the futility of words > in conveying reality. > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > Master: " Ask me tomorrow, it's too cloudy today. " > > Next day. > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > Master: " Zen is Zen. " > > Pete > > > > ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 > Wittgenstein is merely a footnote to Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. How ludicrous. - " Dan Ananda " <danananda2004 <Nisargadatta > Friday, February 20, 2004 3:20 AM Re: Wittgenstein's Equivocations > Wittgenstein is merely a footnote to Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. > > Bill Rishel <plexus wrote:Pete: > << Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and > explanations are circular. Even an unambiguous word > like hello has a different meaning if uttered when > meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in > the middle of a conversation. >> > > Wittgenstein, to my mind, is the greatest analyical > philosopher in the history of Occidental philosophy. > I am not a Wittgenstein scholar -- as I expect Greg is -- > but I have read much of his work, but only the > " later " (post-Tractatus) Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein > cannot be read " serially " like most writers. Rather one > must read and digest in cyclic repetition until one > starts to " get " what he is saying. His insights are > truly revolutionary. I studied Wittgenstein very carefully > in my early 20's. A mentor-friend with a PhD in > Philosophy pointed me to W's book " Philosophical > Investigations " and said, " Read that book! " as it > there were no book that could be more important. > > It took some time before I finally started to " get " > what he was saying. I expect that many people never > do. What I gained from Wittgenstein is laid into the > bedrock of how I think about language and its use. > > Wittgenstein's writings are like a collage of short > segments. Typically each one is separately numbered. He > didn't write cohesive " papers " on a topic. His style > of analysis/expression was *implicit* rather than > explicit. Usually the short segments (typically the > length of a couple of paras) flow in a kind of sequence > in that they pertain to a given topic. There is no > overall explicit structure to his " remarks " . > > He makes the reader think more than any other writer I > know. > > I will be referring to only the " later " Wittgenstein > here (pronounced 'Vitgenstein' btw). > > Wiggenstein does say that the meaning of a word is its > " use " . This means that you cannot understand a word out > of context. There is no " absolute meaning " of a word. > > There is an irony to the way you have quoted > Wittgenstein here, as you have: 1) taken him out of > context, and 2) you have spoken as if distilling him > into a few statements. This is utterly non- > Wittgenstinian. You simply cannot make a few quotes of > succint summary statements and declare that such is the > philosoply of Wittgenstein. You can't even write a > paper and say as much, really. That is something he > himself was never able to do. In this regard there is > an interesting analogy between Wittgenstein and > Krishnamurti. Both would abhor their perspective being > summarized even in a book, let alone in a paper, let > alone in a few quotes. Both were Socratic in their > teaching method. > > To me the essential idea from Wittgenstein is that > philosophical statements almost always entail a confusion > in the use of words. The problem is not in the ideas, > typically, but in a confused use of words which makes > the ideas meaningless. > > If someone makes a statement, such as: " There is no self, " > then the tendency on the part of most everybody is to > consider whether the statement is true or false. But if > there is a confusion in the use of terms then the statement > is neither true nor false, it is *meaningless*. In other > words, logic is not really the binary " toy logic " of > clasical formal logic. > > Further, to make such a statement such as " There is no > self " , on a list such as this is virtually guaranteed > to be out of context. And if out of context it is > inherently meaningless (or so I will argue). > > One of the BIG MISTAKES that people make regarding > Nisargadatta, for example, is that they take statements > made in a *particular context* in dialog with a *particular > person*, and try to treat that statement as some kind > of universal truth. > > The notion that there is no such thing as universal > absolute truths in the sense of a statement taken > as truth is one that is not simple to convery fully > and lucidly without considerable care and development. > > > Bill > > > - > " pete seesaw " <seesaw1us > <advaitatozen > > Cc: <nisargadatta > > Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:32 AM > Wittgenstein's Equivocations > > > > Here are a few favorite Wittgenstein equivocations: > > > > What is the sum of 2 plus apples? > > She sat down grammatically. > > I rode my bicycle in French. > > The number seven hurts. > > I have N friends and 3N+ 5= 0 > > > > Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and explanations are circular. > > Even an unambiguous word like hello has a different meaning if uttered > when > > meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in the middle of a > conversation. > > > > Strangely (for a philosopher), he claimed that language is accurate only > when used colloquially, that when used philosophically propositions are > nonsense, or even jokes. > > > > The meaning of 'I'm hungry. " is unequivocal. Everyone understands the > meaning of 'I', > > and hunger as stated, but in the proposition, " I know Truth. " the meaning > is so obscure > > that it requires three branches of philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology > and Logic to > > try to explain the meaning of those words, and still no consensus is > achieved. > > > > Take this Zen exchange which carries the same sentiment of the futility of > words > > in conveying reality. > > > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > > Master: " Ask me tomorrow, it's too cloudy today. " > > > > Next day. > > > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > > Master: " Zen is Zen. " > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Its too cloudy today He screamed. Its cloudy every day that knowledge precludes insight You try too hard Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Pete: > << Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and > explanations are circular. Even an unambiguous word > like hello has a different meaning if uttered when > meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in > the middle of a conversation. >> > > Wittgenstein, to my mind, is the greatest analyical > philosopher in the history of Occidental philosophy. > I am not a Wittgenstein scholar -- as I expect Greg is -- > but I have read much of his work, but only the > " later " (post-Tractatus) Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein > cannot be read " serially " like most writers. Rather one > must read and digest in cyclic repetition until one > starts to " get " what he is saying. His insights are > truly revolutionary. I studied Wittgenstein very carefully > in my early 20's. A mentor-friend with a PhD in > Philosophy pointed me to W's book " Philosophical > Investigations " and said, " Read that book! " as it > there were no book that could be more important. > > It took some time before I finally started to " get " > what he was saying. I expect that many people never > do. What I gained from Wittgenstein is laid into the > bedrock of how I think about language and its use. > > Wittgenstein's writings are like a collage of short > segments. Typically each one is separately numbered. He > didn't write cohesive " papers " on a topic. His style > of analysis/expression was *implicit* rather than > explicit. Usually the short segments (typically the > length of a couple of paras) flow in a kind of sequence > in that they pertain to a given topic. There is no > overall explicit structure to his " remarks " . > > He makes the reader think more than any other writer I > know. > > I will be referring to only the " later " Wittgenstein > here (pronounced 'Vitgenstein' btw). > > Wiggenstein does say that the meaning of a word is its > " use " . This means that you cannot understand a word out > of context. There is no " absolute meaning " of a word. > > There is an irony to the way you have quoted > Wittgenstein here, as you have: 1) taken him out of > context, and 2) you have spoken as if distilling him > into a few statements. This is utterly non- > Wittgenstinian. You simply cannot make a few quotes of > succint summary statements and declare that such is the > philosoply of Wittgenstein. You can't even write a > paper and say as much, really. That is something he > himself was never able to do. In this regard there is > an interesting analogy between Wittgenstein and > Krishnamurti. Both would abhor their perspective being > summarized even in a book, let alone in a paper, let > alone in a few quotes. Both were Socratic in their > teaching method. > > To me the essential idea from Wittgenstein is that > philosophical statements almost always entail a confusion > in the use of words. The problem is not in the ideas, > typically, but in a confused use of words which makes > the ideas meaningless. > > If someone makes a statement, such as: " There is no self, " > then the tendency on the part of most everybody is to > consider whether the statement is true or false. But if > there is a confusion in the use of terms then the statement > is neither true nor false, it is *meaningless*. In other > words, logic is not really the binary " toy logic " of > clasical formal logic. > > Further, to make such a statement such as " There is no > self " , on a list such as this is virtually guaranteed > to be out of context. And if out of context it is > inherently meaningless (or so I will argue). > > One of the BIG MISTAKES that people make regarding > Nisargadatta, for example, is that they take statements > made in a *particular context* in dialog with a *particular > person*, and try to treat that statement as some kind > of universal truth. > > The notion that there is no such thing as universal > absolute truths in the sense of a statement taken > as truth is one that is not simple to convery fully > and lucidly without considerable care and development. > > > Bill > > > - > " pete seesaw " <seesaw1us> > <advaitatozen > > Cc: <nisargadatta > > Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:32 AM > Wittgenstein's Equivocations > > > > Here are a few favorite Wittgenstein equivocations: > > > > What is the sum of 2 plus apples? > > She sat down grammatically. > > I rode my bicycle in French. > > The number seven hurts. > > I have N friends and 3N+ 5= 0 > > > > Wittgenstein wrote that meaning is usage and explanations are circular. > > Even an unambiguous word like hello has a different meaning if uttered > when > > meeting a person, than when used as an exclamation in the middle of a > conversation. > > > > Strangely (for a philosopher), he claimed that language is accurate only > when used colloquially, that when used philosophically propositions are > nonsense, or even jokes. > > > > The meaning of 'I'm hungry. " is unequivocal. Everyone understands the > meaning of 'I', > > and hunger as stated, but in the proposition, " I know Truth. " the meaning > is so obscure > > that it requires three branches of philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology > and Logic to > > try to explain the meaning of those words, and still no consensus is > achieved. > > > > Take this Zen exchange which carries the same sentiment of the futility of > words > > in conveying reality. > > > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > > Master: " Ask me tomorrow, it's too cloudy today. " > > > > Next day. > > > > Monk: " What is Zen? " > > Master: " Zen is Zen. " > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 > Its too cloudy today > He screamed. > Its cloudy every day that knowledge precludes insight > You try too hard How silly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Wittenstein with a V now that's silly Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Its too cloudy today > > He screamed. > > Its cloudy every day that knowledge precludes insight > > You try too hard > How silly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 > Wittenstein with a V now that's silly Well, now. *That* is just plain funny! LOL - " jmcgeach48 " <jmcgeach48 <Nisargadatta > Friday, February 20, 2004 4:59 PM Re: Wittgenstein's Equivocations > Wittenstein with a V now that's silly > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > Its too cloudy today > > > He screamed. > > > Its cloudy every day that knowledge precludes insight > > > You try too hard > > How silly! > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.