+
/ Topic > Re: Philosophy in Chains! [#3] /
/ Newsgroup > alt.philosophy / 17March2003 /
/ Philosophy Forums > General P. > Philosophy in Chains! /
.
Climbing Wittgenstein's Ladder
.
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks
that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish,
so that he may become wise." -- 1Cor.3:18/NASB
.
> Many moons ago the good Mister Wittgenstein wrote: <snip>
> We feel that even when all possible scientific questions
> have been answered, the problems of life remain completely
> untouched.
.
textman answers: I agree, Herr Wittgenstein. Science is
utterly and absolutely *incompetent*! Hence the need for a
philosophy that is NOT chained up and shackled to arrogant
scientific assumptions and presumptions.
.
> Of course there are then no questions left, and
> this itself is the answer.
.
It's really not much of an answer since there can never be
a world wherein "all possible scientific questions have been
answered". That notion is sheer fantasy having no connection
to reality, and therefore has no (philosophical or scientific)
value whatsoever!
.
> 6.52 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the
> vanishing of the problem.
.
In other words, modern "scientific" philosophy answers the
so-called "problem of life" by simply denying that there is
any such problem!
.
> (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long
> period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them
> have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)
.
No. Rather, the reason why they cannot say "the sense of life"
is that this vision cannot be reduced to "atomic propositions".
.
> There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.
.
This is true enough. Human realities flow through the three
levels of instinct, emotion, and cognition; and it is only
the later that is wholly dependent upon words (although even
instinct and emotion can be imperfectly expressed through
words and/or signs and symbols).
.
> They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
.
If that is so, then the "sense of life" is necessarily
mystical in nature and orientation. The question is: Does this
mean that "life" is beyond the scope of philosophy? Certainly
not! And the reason is that while life is beyond the narrow
and disconnected scope of science, it is not beyond the
universal and integrative scope of philosophy. Thus science
and philosophy are different in that science proceeds by
pulling things apart and disconnecting them from reality, but
philosophy proceeds by putting things together and relating
them to the larger context (ie. reality/history as a whole).
.
> 6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the
> following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e.
> propositions of natural science - i.e. something that has
> nothing to do with philosophy -
.
Ludwig here admits that science and philosophy are NOT the
same thing, and yet he would have us believe that the only
"correct method" for philosophy is the one used by science.
His logic, in other words, is flawed by contradiction, and
is thus ultimately irrational and unconvincing.
.
> and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something
> metaphysical,
.
Or "mystical" (as we saw the 'sense of life' must be).
.
> to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning
> to certain signs in his propositions.
.
Meaningful propositions are here arbitrarily confined
exclusively to "scientific" propositions; an idea which
is neither justified nor rational.
.
> Although it would not be satisfying to the other person -
> he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him
> philosophy - this method would be the only strictly
> correct one.
.
No. He would not have the feeling that we were teaching
him philosophy because his "feeling" correctly discerns
that this method is NOT philosophy at all!
.
> 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who
> understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when
> he has climbed out through them, on them, over them.
.
That would be the offensive one alright, since eye recognize
them as senseless even before climbing on and over them! :D
.
> (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has
> climbed up on it.)
.
To do so would be to leave oneself stranded in mid-air without
any visible means of support! I would much rather throw away
Wittgenstein's Ladder *before* climbing up on it. In this way
we can save ourselves a lot of needless pain and agony.
.
> 7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
.
I would like to rephrase this statement so as to make it more
intelligible: "What science cannot speak about, philosophy must
pass over in silence." In putting the assertion into this form,
we can better see its strengths and weaknesses. Its strength
is that in this form the statement claims to be substantially
true (ie. according to a restrictive vision of philosophy).
.
Its weakness lies in the assumption that *only* science is
qualified to make statements asserting the truth about things.
But this is, in fact, not so. Poetry, art, music, history,
*and* philosophy are ALL modes of expression distinct from
science as such, and they all "speak about things" in ways
that science *cannot* copy or imitate.
.
Now Wittgenstein would have us believe that we ought not to
listen to any of these things because only science has the
right to legitimately make truth claims. This is simply not
true. If poetry, art, music, history, and philosophy (ie. in
the most general and unrestrictive sense) are seen to be sheer
nonsense by Wittgenstein, that's one thing. That's just his
(ignorant) opinion, and thus acceptable as such.
.
But when he turns around and tells me that I too must accept
his opinion as absolute truth *then* he is straying far beyond
the bounds of reason into pure dogmatism. Thus the problem
with Wittgenstein is that his notion of Reason is just too
darned narrow and restrictive to be of any lasting value or
utility ... "Get over it", sayeth the cyber-prophet.
.
- the almost overly expansive one - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. "As the cabaret of life unfolds before your very
eyes, remember there's a fall for every rise."
-- from 'Psi-Fi' by Seventh Wave
x
+
/ Topic > Re: Philosophy in Chains! [#4] /
/ TOL > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy in Chains! /
/ Philosophy Forums > General Phil. > Philosophy in Chains! /
/ Ngz: alt.philosophy,alt.religion.apologetics / 24March2003 /
.
Long Vision vs Short Vision / 1
[or: Why Philosophy Supercedes Science]
.
"The Logos (or Reason (or Way)) contains and encompasses
Logic, but Reason is not thereby contained by (or within)
Logic. These two activities are *NOT AT ALL* identical!"
-- from 'Neo-Heraclitean Primer for Beliievers'
.
> On March17 Mr. Ben wrote: <snip> The questions as to why
> humans choose the preferences they do, why they find certain
> things aesthetically pleasing or not pleasing, why they
> choose to believe various forms of fantasy and flim flam.
> Those questions are scientific questions, regardless of
> whether they can ever be answered adequately or not.
.
textman replies: Hi, MrBen. I don't quite agree with this
assessment; for various reasons, of course. 4X: It's rather
difficult to see how the instrumentalism of science can
adequately deal with something so formless and indefinite as
fantasy. I mean, can you really bring it into the lab, and
run it through a series of tests and measurements? Or maybe
faster computers would help?
.
Moreover, I've been thinking a bit about this very thing you
just mentioned: "why they find certain things aesthetically
pleasing or not pleasing". Now since logos-philosophy is
basically contextual in its approach, it is necessary to always
begin with concrete realities; in this case, music. Consider
Shania Twain's recent double-album, Up:). The totally unheard
of international success of this "country" CD argues that
musical "taste" or "appreciation" is NOT due to any specific
environment or cultural-conditioning or psychological
determinism (or some such nonsense), but rather is due to
something innate, some universal characteristic or quality
of human being, that simply "responds" to "pleasant-stimuli".
.
On the other hand, a CD such as, for instance, 'Psi-Fi' (by
Seventh Wave) argues against this notion of the innate "good
taste" of the mob; that the masses are, in fact, incapable
of appreciating "high-art". Therefore if and when something
good is picked up by the masses, this is mere coincidence, a
lucky convergence of events, the spirit of the times, synergy,
or whatever you what to call it. Now my view is that the
truth lies somewhere between these extremes. Thus the "spirit
of music" DOES indeed grow and develop over time, *BUT*
the masses are, naturally, very slow to be ... ummmmm ...
*musically-educated* ... (for want of a better term?).
.
What all this means is just that music *can* be examined
and criticized by scientific concepts and techniques, but the
results will always be "thin" because music is (necessarily)
an activity of "cosmic" Spirit. That is, Music at its very
*best* can serve as a very effective vehicle for spirit and
logos. Or, to put it in even another way: Music is a concrete
and objective expression and/or manifestation of Spirit). And
yet *Science* is incapable of dealing with the Spirit! On this
point, Wittgenstein and logos-philosophy are in complete and
absolute agreement. Oh yes, this is clearly a job for much
sharper heads. Which is to say, it is a job for those who
love and serve Sophia (aka the Encourager)!
.
> <snip> The positivists fundamental error was in believing
> that there could be a formal system by which inference
> could be converted into knowledge.
.
I agree that there is some sort of error in this idea. It is
a curious question though. A formal system by which inference
can be converted into knowledge, eh? How about 'life according
to human-beings'? Thus "life" itself is a formal system by
which inference is constantly being converted into knowledge.
Say, we might be onto something here!
.
> It is now known that this is not the case. Inference
> is supported only by the feedback of experience,
.
I object to your use of 'only' here ...
.
> and generally relies on a large set of cognitive "rules
> of thumb" that evolution has programmed into us, and
> continuously fine tunes.
.
Evolution "fine tunes" our cognitive rules?!? I'm afraid you
lost me there, Mr Ben. Are you referring to innate universal
and transcendental categories that compel us to perceive
everything by way of time and space, causality and duration,
and so forth? Or do you mean that our DNA determines the very
nature and contents of our thoughts, emotions, and perceptions?
.
> What we know about the world, how we know it, and why we
> believe it is a bit more complex than the positivists had
> initially expected.
.
This sentence is more confusing than revealing.
.
> They found themselves in the domain of cognitive neuro-
> biology and evolutionary sociobiology (sciences that didn't
> exist then) without even realizing it, and they simply
> didn't have the correct tools for the job at hand.
.
That is, they couldn't part with their beloved familiar
tools. They couldn't exchange them for these untried (and
more doubtful seeming) tools. "The more things change,
the more they stay the same" (Snake Pliskin).>> textman previously quoted the Big Dog: "Let no man deceive> Ahh.. Biblical platitudes...
>> himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in
>> this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become
>> wise." -- 1Cor 3:18 / NASB>
.
How unscientific can you get, eh?
.
>>> Many moons ago the good mister Wittgenstein wrote: <snip>
>>> We feel that even when all possible scientific questions
>>> have been answered, the problems of life remain
>>> completely untouched.
.
>> textman answers: I agree, Herr Wittgenstein! Science is
>> utterly and absolutely *incompetent*! Hence the need
>> for a philosophy that is NOT chained up and shackled
>> to arrogant scientific assumptions and presumptions.
.
> Why? Of what use is a philosophy that is not grounded
> in any way in reality?
.
None whatsoever, of course. However, it is typical of the
scientific attitude and/or mentality to presuppose that
Science encompasses the *whole* of Reality. Talk about
creating gods in your own image!
.
> You are making a bold assertion.
.
Tell me about it!
.
Anyway, whenever anyone compares Philosophy and Science, it is
good practice to be clear in your own mind what is indicated
by these terms. Now science in general tends to conceive of
itself as an enterprise that goes from here to there (just like
the starship), and as a journey that ends in a better place,
or as a finite project that can (and indeed *must*) be brought
(someday) to completion. But if we take away this unconscious
faith in the teleological concept of science-on-route-to-
completion, then science is abruptly deprived of the foundation
of all its motivation to ask questions, and provide answers!
.
On the other hand, the goal of Philosophy is not at all the
production of certainty and domination, but rather it is the
attempt to discover (or invent) some measure of intellectual
clarity and conceptual focus. So whereas Science produces not
so much insight as *information* (and with it the illusion of
certainty), Philosophy produces *literature* (which varies
*enormously* in quality, of course).
.
> You must support your assertion that ungrounded fly like
> the wind philosophy is somehow superior to knowledge
> gained by examining how the world works, how humans
> work, and how society works.
.
I'm not saying that Science can't or doesn't contribute any-
thing; only that some big things fall outside its scope and
competence. 4X: Science cannot step outside itself and discuss
the value, role, and meaning of science in general. For these
are philosophical questions that are best handled by Philosophy.
.
> After all, anyone can make up any old philosophy about
> this and that. But that doesn't mean that philosophy has
> anything to do with the real world or the things in it.
.
It does if truth-claims are being made; for these can only
make sense by way of how they relate to the larger reality
(ie. factually and/or usefully, or just unrealistically).
.
>>> Of course there are then no questions left, and
>>> this itself is the answer.
.
>> It's really not much of an answer since there can never be
>> a world wherein "all possible scientific questions have
>> been answered". That notion is sheer fantasy having no
>> connection to reality, and therefore has no (philosophical
>> or scientific) value whatsoever!
.
> This is a rhetorical statement. The point is that if
> questions of substance are answered (and that includes
> practically every question of any relevance to human
> beings), what you are left with are the vague fantasies
> that theology and philosophy used to obsess over.
.
I see. So you're saying that philosophy must cleave tightly
to science in order to prevent the inevitable sliding back
into these "vague fantasies"? That only science can save us
from theology and "ungrounded fly-like-the-wind philosophy"?
This position shows us a clear chain of command as regards
knowledge and truth: Science -> Philosophy (a far distant
second) -> Theology (a *very* far distant third).
.
In previous ages the order was: Theology -> Philosophy ->
Science. Now our view of the CORRECT order is as follows:
Philosophy -> Science -> Theology. In other words, where
science stops is where philosophy begins. And while science
is self-correcting (for the most part), theology requires
philosophy to do the necessary correcting; ie. because it
is obviously incapable of doing this for itself!
.
>>> 6.52 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the
>>> vanishing of the problem.
.
>> In other words, modern "scientific" philosophy answers
>> the so-called "problem of life" by simply denying that
>> there is any such problem!
.
> No, it simply poses it in terms in which the questions
> may be answered by the information available instead of
> ignoring that information, or simply just making things up.
.
I understand. Extravagant questions are better replaced by
more humble and modest questions. It's the settle-for-less
type of philosophy!
.
>>> (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a
>>> long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear
>>> to them have then been unable to say what constituted
>>> that sense?)
.
>> No. Rather, the reason why they cannot say "the sense
>> of life" is that this vision cannot be reduced to
>> "atomic propositions".
.
> Science can now definitely say what it is that constitutes
> that sense. It is their brain and the neurological activity
> within it. It can indeed be reduced down to the molecular
> level, and has to do with the release of various endorphins
> and other molecular neurotransmitters in certain specific
> parts of the brain.
.
Hmmm. Do you know that story about how Socrates went to a
physician to learn how people do things, and got treated to a
lecture on how the muscles move this way and that in order to
move the arm just so, such that the fingers can move in such a
way so as to manipulate a tool like this and that, and so on
and so forth? Socrates did not get what he wanted out of that
guy! Scientists who fancy themselves philosophers often accuse
others of being pretentious and presumptuous in their labors,
but in the end they prove to be like Socrates' presumptuous
physician. Their fruits do not live up to their promises.
.
> Likewise we can trace the history of the brain back, and
> posit good guesses as to why these particular structures
> that produce these emotive effects exist.
.
The history of the human brain is indeed a fascinating
topic. Alas, we are a very *long* way from digging to
the bottom of *that* particular barrel!
.
>>> There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words.
.
>> This is true enough. Human realities flow through the three
>> levels of instinct, emotion, and cognition; and it is only
>> the later that is wholly dependent upon words (although
>> even instinct and emotion can be imperfectly expressed
>> through words and/or signs and symbols).
.
> But instinct and emotion are physical, measurable processes.
> They have a physical cause, and are affected by other
> physical states. This is certainly within the realm of
> science, and so there is simply no good reason to seek
> nebulous philosophical constructs to explain them.
.
I think I agree with you here. Somewhat. In part. That is, I
agree that instinct and emotion can and should be understood
within the context of evolutionary genesis; BUT this does not
exhaust the *meaning* of instinct and emotion. Human behavior
cannot be consistently reduced to "causes" stemming exclusively
from instinct and emotion. This is because a scientific (and /
or materialistic) definition of human-being is much too narrow
(as is the short-vision that follows after it), such that
something always falls through the cracks and gets lost!
.
>>> They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
.
>> If that is so, then the "sense of life" is necessarily
>> mystical in nature and orientation. The question is: Does
>> this mean that "life" is beyond the scope of philosophy?
>> Certainly not! And the reason is that while life is beyond
>> the narrow and disconnected scope of science, it is not
>> beyond the universal and integrative scope of philosophy.
>> Thus science and philosophy are different in that science
>> proceeds by pulling things apart and disconnecting them
>> from reality, but philosophy proceeds by putting things
>> together and relating them to the larger context (ie.
>> reality/history as a whole).
.
> On what planet does science not put things together relating
> them to the larger context? Certainly not planet earth.
> Science takes apart and puts together. It is interested in
> both the details, as well as the big picture.
.
Except that specialization only allows for the taking apart
and putting together on the *small* scale. But the nature of
scientific-specialization just does not allow for putting
things together on the grand scale. That requires a
generalist, not a specialist. And the most professional
generalist is not the scientist, but the philosopher!
.
> However, it is not interested in a "wholistic" approach
> (meaning usually one that ignores all details of a complex
> issue in favor of one ill fitting grandiose fantasy).
.
Right. Philosophy is the effort to describe an infinite,
eternal, and complex EVERYTHING in only three carefully
crafted paragraphs!
.
>>> 6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be
>>> the following: to say nothing except what can be said,
>>> i.e. propositions of natural science - i.e. something
>>> that has nothing to do with philosophy -
.
>> Ludwig here admits that science and philosophy are NOT the
>> same thing, and yet he would have us believe that the only
>> "correct method" for philosophy is the one used by science.
>> His logic, in other words, is flawed by contradiction, and
>> is thus ultimately irrational and unconvincing.
.
> The contradiction only is apparent when you force your
> interpretation on what he is saying. Science is not the
> same thing as philosophy. However, the underpinnings of
> what makes good science is also the underpinnings of
> what makes for workable philosophy.
.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms; on the basis that
Philosophy is (in Reality) as much Art as it is Science. In
other words, Hegel and Russell are both wrong! And actually,
philosophy bridges and embraces both Art *and* Science, because
it has a foot in each bucket (so to speak). But *Science*,
since it stands alone in magnificent glory, can arrogantly
reject both Art and Philosophy (ie. those forms of philosophy
that do not bow always to Science)!
.
> That is basically that the propositions in both need
> to be supported by tangible empirical evidence.
.
This is precisely WHY science is unable to accept as valid
the essentially non-scientific nature of art and philosophy.
Wut? Only scientists are fit to speak the truth of things?
Yes. Einstein IZ God!
.
Please proceed to Vision part-two ... Coming Soon!
.
- the overly partitioned one - textman ;;>
.
P.S. Mini-review of 'Psi-Fi' --> Too many notes!
x
textman
*