Mysticism and the later Wittgenstein: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Mysticism and the later Wittgenstein » Mysticism and the later Wittgenstein

Mysticism and the later Wittgenstein
Is the Wittgenstein of the PI ultimately arguing for a kind of mysticism?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Mysticism and the later Wittgenstein

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/21/09 - 10:37 AM:	#11
Ah, I understand what you're saying (180 and wuliheron). Granted, we can distinguish mystical traditions and methods by the ritual use of symbols and if that is all there is about mysticism then W. doesn't qualify. But, I think there is more. 180 put his finger exactly on the distinction I'm interested in. The attitude that the world is what it is and the transcendent experience is simply transcending the way in which we conceptualize the world. In a way that describes what it is to learn anything. But, contrast that attitude with the attitude that the world is a puzzle to be solved and it is the world that changes when the problem is solved. Thinking of it this way then W. clearly falls into the former category. So, what is the goal of philosophy? Do we change or does the world, when we understand something?
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5117

Posted 10/21/09 - 12:13 PM:	#12
Gadfly II wrote: So, what is the goal of philosophy? Are you kidding? Well, I think philosophy begins with one being called into question (i.e. a momentarily heightened state of clarity) by "the negligible & impermanent" or some other taken-for-granted banality, then proceeds by carefully questioning questions themselves (e.g. when we question what are we doing?) and culminates in understanding the difference between those questions which are answerable and those which are merely questionable. (Of course, answerable questions transcend philosophy ...) Do we change or does the world, when we understand something? Both change. After all, we're aspects of, or communicating-participants in, the world-process. The changes we bring about -- independent of scale -- are extremely minute, however, and almost always ephemeral. (Kinda "world as a limited whole ... sub specie aeternitatis" mystical, huh?)
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 10/21/09 - 02:08 PM:	#13
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not understanding, and ultimately there is no understanding love any more than you can "understand" a sense of humor. This is a common mistake many philosophers make, like someone watching a magic show they pay more attention to the distracting hand waving and the pretty woman than they do to how the trick is actually done. Thus you get so many philosophers debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. All in the name of "understanding." Wit's growth as a philosopher (not to mention his private life) demonstrates exactly this kind of dedication to understanding more than loving. It is what I would describe as the "brute force" approach to personal growth. It achieves some results, but at great cost leaving one to wonder if it was worth it all. Society may benefit from learning new ways to juggle abstractions, but the individual often suffers greatly in the process. As 180 said, it has to do with "transcendence" or "enlightenment," something most philosophies also touch upon. They all pretty much agree that enlightenment is the act of "surrender" or "acceptance," and love is also an act of surrender or acceptance. In China they say you can still occationally wander upon someone in the wilderness obviously sitting zazen or otherwise meditating. However, if you ask them if they are Zen or Taoist they will sometimes chase you with a stick yelling, "NO! I'm just me! Go Away!" If Wit was a mystic he truly hid it well.

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/21/09 - 06:44 PM:	#14
Well, I will grant that W. was not a monk or a priest or a member of a recognized mystical sect, but if that is all there is to being a mystic our conversation would be over. Let me say what i mean this way: If one studies the writing of Russell on the theory of descriptions one comes to understand that POV. Then if someone like Kripke comes along and points out that we can refer to objects while not knowing any true description of it, then one is forced to admit that the theory as it stands either needs to be abandoned as false or modified to accommodate the contradiction. The later W. repudiated such methods and, by the very way in which he wrote, one is placed in the position of struggling to understand his POV, and if a contradiction arises it is because the person does not fully understand. The flaw is in the individual and not in anything that W. is saying. Wittgenstein glimpsed a truth, much in the same way that Buddha did, and offered a way to duplicate the insight. this seems to me to be the only alternative to analysis, and broadly speaking it is a mystical approach. In analysis we wonder what a thing is and we use analyitical tools to discover what the thing is. Mysticism, on the other hand, glimpses the truth and tries to duplicate the effect in others. I don't see that one method precludes the other, i.e. I see no need to choose sides. Rather I think it is the question that will respond most effectively to one or the other.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/21/09 - 07:15 PM:	#15
Once again you completely bypass the act of surrender. Since you seem stuck on Buddhism at the moment I'll use that as an example. According to Buddhism everyone already has a Buddha nature and already sees the truth (reality) beyond the illusion of Maya or differentiation. The issue is not so much seeing the truth as accepting the truth or surrendering to the truth of what you already are and what you already are aware of. This is why there is no single best way to become enlightened, everyone has their own denial to deal with in their own particular way. No doubt Wit had many insights into mysticism and his work boardered on the mystical, but that is not the same thing as being a mystic. Even if Wit had actually written about mysticism explicitly that still would not necessarilly mean he was a mystic. Hell, one of my favorite authors on Taoism isn't a Taoist, but he has a really nice understanding of the subject and a way with words.

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/22/09 - 12:50 PM:	#16
wuliheron wrote: Once again you completely bypass the act of surrender. Could you expand on the act of surrender? wuliheron wrote: No doubt Wit had many insights into mysticism and his work boardered on the mystical, but that is not the same thing as being a mystic. Even if Wit had actually written about mysticism explicitly that still would not necessarilly mean he was a mystic. Hell, one of my favorite authors on Taoism isn't a Taoist, but he has a really nice understanding of the subject and a way with words. So, how do we decide if someone's philosophy is mystical?
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 10/22/09 - 12:54 PM:	#17
wuliheron wrote: Even if Wit had actually written about mysticism explicitly that still would not necessarilly mean he was a mystic. Hell, one of my favorite authors on Taoism isn't a Taoist, but he has a really nice understanding of the subject and a way with words. "So, how do we decide if someone's philosophy is mystical?" If one answers, one escapes Buddha-nature... If one hoots and slaps his knee, and utters some things like "that was funny", do they have a sense of humor? [just adding to what you already said] Edited by rigelrover on 10/22/09 - 01:01 PM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 10/22/09 - 01:51 PM:	#18
rigelrover wrote: "So, how do we decide if someone's philosophy is mystical?" If one answers, one escapes Buddha-nature... If one hoots and slaps his knee, and utters some things like "that was funny", do they have a sense of humor? [just adding to what you already said] Well it helps to start with a dictionary definition of the word: Dictionary.com wrote: mysticism –noun 1. the beliefs, ideas, or mode of thought of mystics. 2. a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation or ecstasy. 3. obscure thought or speculation. Although Wit is now long dead, it can also be helpful to ask the individual if they are a mystic or not. I suppose some mystics might also argue that you could determine if someone is a mystic or not through having a mystical experience yourself. It all just depends upon your personal standards for what constitutes "proof".

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/22/09 - 02:00 PM:	#19
Well, refusing to answer a question is an option, but I wonder why someone would want to do that in this forum. I've read nothing that persuades me that the PI can not be considered mystical. Whether W was a mystic is another question entirely as wuliheron points out above) Notice I wrote mystical and not mystic. And if anyone thinks I'm not on firm ground about W. philosophy here is an excerpt of a letter by one who knew him on the subject of whether W. was a mystic. (another question entirely, in my view, but one that has been confused with my question) [letter from Bertrand Russell to Lady Ottoline Morell that was written in the winter of 1919 after Russell had met with Wittgenstein in Holland to discuss his Tractatus manuscript.] I have much to tell you that is of interest. I leave here today [December 20, 1919, from the The Hague] after a fortnight’s stay, during a week of which Wittgenstein was here, and we discussed his book [the Tractatus] everyday. I came to think even better of it than I had done; I feel sure it is really a great book, though I do not feel sure it is right. . . . I had felt in his book a flavour of mysticism, but was astonished when I found that he has become a complete mystic. He reads people like Kierkegaard and Angelus Silesius, and he seriously contemplates becoming a monk. It all started from William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience, and grew (not unnaturally) during the winter he spent alone in Norway before the war, when he was nearly mad. Then during the war a curious thing happened. He went on duty to the town of Tarnov in Galicia, and happened to come upon a bookshop, which, however, seemed to contain nothing but picture postcards. However, he went inside and found that it contained just one book: Tolstoy on the Gospels. He brought it merely because there was no other. He read it and re-read it, and thenceforth had it always with him, under fire and at all times. But on the whole he likes Tolstoy less than Dostoyevsky (especially Karamazov). He has penetrated deep into mystical ways of thought and feeling, but I think (though he wouldn’t agree) that what he likes best in mysticism is its power to make him stop thinking. I don’t much think he will really become a monk — it is an idea, not an intention. His intention is to be a teacher. He gave all his money to his brothers and sisters, because he found earthly possessions a burden. I wish you had seen him.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 10/22/09 - 02:11 PM:	#20
Gadfly II wrote: Could you expand on the act of surrender? Again I will start with a simple dictionary definition: Dictionary.com wrote: surrender To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion. To give up in favor of another. In this case I am talking about the second definition more than the first, "To give up in favor of another." Being only human we all have attachments to particular viewpoints and what psychologists like to call "denial." A common Asian metaphor for this process is that of a cyclone. Around the calm center of the storm fly all of our beliefs in an endless cacophany of noise as they collide with each other. When we surrender our beliefs in exchange for the calm center of the storm we simply let them go, that is, we choose to stop being emotionally attached to them. It is our emotional attachment that drags us into the malestrom causing endless suffering. You can also think of it as becoming lost in the moment. An example would be a musician becoming lost in their music, loosing all track of time or sense of themselves as they become one with the act of making music. Both of these examples are somewhat metaphorical because the act involves our emotional affect which, ultimately, I can only describe metaphorically. Just as I cannot fully relate to someone who is blind what it is like to see colors, I cannot fully express to someone who has never experienced surrender what the act is actually like. Either you have a sense of humor, or you can't fully understand what it is like. Likewise, either you have experienced surrender to some extent, or you cannot understand my words.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.