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 10/20/09 - 04:31 PM: Subject: Mysticism and the later Wittgenstein	#1
Wittgenstein stated that philosophy leaves everything as it is. Philosophical problems arise solely because we misunderstand our own language. I think there are strong parallels between this conception of philosophy and the mystical traditions, e.g. Buddhism. The Buddha often referred to himself as offering a cure for the sufferings we experience. Just as Wittgenstein thinks that language is fine the way it is, the Buddha thought that the world was fine the way that it is. the source of our suffering, the suffering that could be relieved, was in our misunderstanding of what the world is and our place in it. Both Wittgenstein and Buddha seemed to be saying that what is needed is realization of the way things are, and the mistake is thinking that we need to discover something new. So, my question is, do you think that W. is a mystical philosophy? And second,(this can be in connection with W. or totally independent) is mysticism a proper approach for philosophy in general? Edited by Gadfly II on 10/20/09 - 04:39 PM. Reason: number agreement
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 10/20/09 - 07:19 PM:	#2
Yes?
"...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.

Gadfly II
In the ointment

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

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 10/20/09 - 08:33 PM:	#3
Cadrache wrote: Yes? So, do you think that realization is the correct method of philosophical inquiry exclusive of all the others; or rather, are only some questions best approached this way, and if this is true what kind of questions? Or are you simply saying that it is obvious the later W. is mystical?
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5122

Posted 10/20/09 - 09:11 PM:	#4
Gadfly II wrote: So, my question is, do you think that W. is a mystical philosophy? No. *"A philosophical problem has the form: I don't know my way about."* -- L.W., Philosophical Investigations, section 123 "What is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle." -- L.W., Philosophical Investigations, section 309 I think Witty's approach consists in pointing out that understandings are skillful habits of, or reflective reminders for, discursively orienting ourselves without e.g. (occluding) jargon, sophistry, scientism, esoterica / arcana, decontextuality, etc. 'Everything is left as it is' because it's we who must change in order to *"see the world aright"* (from 6.54, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Consistent with 'religious' & 'mystical' approaches, Witty's philosophy nonetheless significantly differs from them by being this-world oriented (i.e. immanent) & devoid of 'ritualism'. And second,(this can be in connection with W. or totally independent) is mysticism a proper approach for philosophy in general? No. 'Mysticism' amounts to metaphysics-in-symbols (unlike the metaphysics-in-pictures of non-mystical 'religion') which gives short shrift to elements of judgment (i.e. rationality) such as conceptual clarity & inferential validity. Edited by 180 Proof on 10/22/09 - 02:53 PM. Reason: Wonder what Witty would do ...
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

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/20/09 - 09:18 PM:	#5
180 Proof wrote: 'Mysticism' amounts to metaphysics-in-symbols... Could you explain this or perhaps provide examples?
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5122

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/20/09 - 10:08 PM:	#6
Gadfly II wrote: 180 Proof wrote: 'Mysticism' amounts to metaphysics-in-symbols... Could you explain this or perhaps provide examples? Mystical traditions tend to incorporate symbols like "mantras" "koans" "buddhas" "taijis" ... formalized insights (into "reality") that cannot be understood by inferential reasoning, or abstraction. Symbols are ritually used as 'transcendent' pointers and not intellectual puzzles/problems to be solved. Edited by 180 Proof on 10/22/09 - 02:54 PM. Reason: Fidelity sans faith ...
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: 4149

Posted 10/21/09 - 03:57 AM:	#7
I agree with 180. If nothing else all mystical traditions incorporate some kind of practice or ritual and usually this is combined with various paradoxes. Wit does not promote any type of practice, ritual, or paradoxes but, rather, merely states his case in a very rational manner.

swamy
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2009

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 61

Posted 10/21/09 - 04:41 AM:	#8
Mysticism is an unusal experience and forces to think about it.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 10/21/09 - 06:38 AM:	#9
The encounter with the absurd, in philosophy, leads one to mysticism. I have not read enough L.W. to speak about him in broad generality. In particular, the sources that 180 uses seem consistent with the idea that he was not a mystic or did not move toward mysticism. That is not to say that one should avoid this movement in philosophy in general. The modern Buddhist monks are very well trained in logic as well as mysticism as ways of coming to knowledge. I see mysticism like a sense of humor. One cannot learn by evidence and logic to have one. One must only learn through direct experience with the humorous, etc.
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.

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5122

Posted 10/21/09 - 07:38 AM:	#10
rigelrover wrote: I see mysticism like a sense of humor. One cannot learn by evidence and logic to have one. One must only learn through direct experience with the humorous, etc.
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?]]]

Page: 1 2 3 4

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