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 10/22/09 - 02:20 PM:	#21
wuliheron wrote: In this case I am talking about the second definition more than the first, "To give up in favor of another." Since it is you who are committed to this point of view, why do you insist on others doing as you believe you should do? In other words why don't you practice what you preach? Adopting the stance of a mystic has rhetorical advantages. It enables one to dodge questions by simply insisting that the other doesn't understand and when asked to explain, the mystic simply replies that there are no words. This coupled with appeals to shame and ignorance gives one an unassailable rhetorical stance. do you ask for surrender or resist it within yourself?
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: 4156

Posted 10/22/09 - 03:16 PM:	#22
Gadfly II wrote: Since it is you who are committed to this point of view, why do you insist on others doing as you believe you should do? In other words why don't you practice what you preach? Adopting the stance of a mystic has rhetorical advantages. It enables one to dodge questions by simply insisting that the other doesn't understand and when asked to explain, the mystic simply replies that there are no words. This coupled with appeals to shame and ignorance gives one an unassailable rhetorical stance. do you ask for surrender or resist it within yourself? What's up? First you impatiently accuse me of not answering your question before I have a chance to do so, now this. Why do you feel compelled to make personal attacks? I'm not preaching to anyone! Nor am I even suggesting for a single moment that everyone should be a mystic! I am merely relating the facts as I have come to understand them. You were the one who asked the question, you were the one who became impatient for my response, and now you are the one attacking me for responding! Get a grip dude!

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5135

Posted 10/22/09 - 03:30 PM:	#23
Gadfly II wrote: So, how do we decide if someone's philosophy is mystical? Witty tells us. A philosophy that allows anyone who understands it to stop doing philosophy (i.e. thinking) whenever they want is 'mystical' (re: surrender to The World As It Is). Three+ generations of countless academic & non-academic philosophers have felt compelled to keep doing philosophy by Witty's oeuvre, and clearly, it wasn't 'mystical' enough for him ... That said, I've always found -- like many other I'm suspect -- the Tractatus Logico-Philosophical to be as close to a conceptual mandala as can be attained discursively. It's nearly as sublime as it is profoundly insightful. Edited by 180 Proof on 10/24/09 - 03:09 PM. Reason: grammar ...
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?]]]

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 - 03:43 PM:	#24
wuliheron wrote: What's up? First you impatiently accuse me of not answering your question before I have a chance to do so, now this. Why do you feel compelled to make personal attacks? I'm not preaching to anyone! Nor am I even suggesting for a single moment that everyone should be a mystic! I am merely relating the facts as I have come to understand them. You were the one who asked the question, you were the one who became impatient for my response, and now you are the one attacking me for responding! Get a grip dude! I am simply writing about my thoughts on the subject. If you are emotionally wedded to these issues and identify with them that is between you and your therapist. I think, given your emotional outburst, that ...well you figure it out.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

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 - 03:50 PM:	#25
180 Proof wrote: Witty tells us. A philosophy that allows anyone who understands it to stop doing philosophy (i.e. thinking) is 'mystical' (re: surrender to The World As It Is) whenever they want. Yes, I agree. Although I think it is grounds for suspicion when a person announces the end of philosophy...twice. (Will people ever stop using those silly scare quotes? They are so disingenuous. I've even found them in scientific writing bound for peer review. An example, A patient's symptoms were "serious." I would ask were they in "pain?" or were they in pain? So, W. is the word "mystical" or he is mystical but not really?) Edited by Gadfly II on 10/22/09 - 03:56 PM
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/22/09 - 03:51 PM:	#26
~Looks at the 26 letters of the English alphabet. Symbols eh?
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/22/09 - 04:00 PM:	#27
L'amour! La bouche! La bouche! La produit de le petit bon homme? Monsiour - ne pas le touche comme ca! C'est une petite carrese. Now that is mysticism.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 10/22/09 - 04:33 PM:	#28
Gadfly II wrote: I am simply writing about my thoughts on the subject. If you are emotionally wedded to these issues and identify with them that is between you and your therapist. I think, given your emotional outburst, that ...well you figure it out. Personal attacks are not simply writing about your thoughts on the subject, they are personal attacks that stray from the subject. Especially when they are based on baited questions and false accusations. Your argument is what is called "ad hominem abusive." Wikipedia wrote: Ad hominem abusive Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam[citation needed]) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.[original research?] Examples: "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists. He doesn't even have a job." "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/22/09 - 04:35 PM:	#29
The wood is on fire. Wood <-> Fire. People tend to claim that language is devolved from the physical aspects of observation. Normally mysticism and 'the other side' agree. The real argument therefore needs to divide the mysticism/observation properly. Mystical Language vs. Normal Language and Mystical observation vs. Normal Observation. Throwing in a little Sartre - we come to a difference. Formal 'the other side' language evolves their relationships of construction by way of physical-phenomena. Mystical Language evoles their relationships from the physical-noumenic. As such the formal language relationships are primarily physical-phenomenal in nature. Yet we claim that the central node - the physical - exists at the same locality between phenomenal/noumenical then all relationships must therefore exist the same. noumenal-physical must have the same relationships as the phenomenal-physical. Yet we argue that mysticism is false because we argue the relationship phenomenal is different then the relationship noumenical. Since we observe that they are different we then claim that the phenomenal-noumenal construct is flawed. Mysticism is not making sense. Scientifically that is about as sound as arguing that the red cup cannot be red because the vibration of a piano string does not change the vibration of light. The usage of arguing falsely mysticism on account of not knowing which relationship you are talking about. See Unenlightened's Babel Fish thread in the community forums for a few examples.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 10/22/09 - 05:02 PM:	#30
wuliheron wrote: 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. Sorry to interrupt the thread and yet another one of Gadfly II's abusive episodes, but I'm interested in who this author might be. (And in any suggestions about other insightful texts on Taoism.) Thanks.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Page: 1 2 3 4

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