Post by zendancer on Oct 20, 2010 23:11:25 GMT -5
Question: Apparently my memory of the Wittgenstein issue, which is admittedly somewhat ancient, came partly from comments by G. Spencer and his quote of Bertrand Russell, who said, "what causes hesitation is the fact that, after all, Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the skeptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit." The exit, as conceived by G. Spencer, was in the injunctive faculty of language rather than the descriptive faculty.
In referring to Wittgenstein's final proposition (4,7) G. Spencer writes, "He notes elsewhere that the mathematician, descriptively speaking, says nothing. The same may be said of the composer, who, if he were to attempt a description (i.e. a limitation) of the set of ecstasies apparent through (i.e. unlimited by) his composition, would fail miserably and necessarily. But neither the composer nor the mathematician must, for this reason, be silent.
This brings to mind the old maxim, "He who knows does not speak, and he who speaks does not know," to which I would hastily reply, "That's another wonderful idea to get rid of." LOL
I remember reading something Wittgenstein once wrote and thinking, "This may well be worth understanding, but I don't think I want to think hard enough to attain that understanding." I encountered the same thing with some of Kierkegaard's writings, and it probably indicates either that my IQ is just not up to par or that I'm sometimes too lazy to want to dig through multiple layers of semi-penetrable thought. Fortunately, reality treats fools kindly, and forgives them for their failure to pursue overly torturous forms of thinking. Rumi's play has far more appeal even though I can appreciate the effort expended by W, et al.
In referring to Wittgenstein's final proposition (4,7) G. Spencer writes, "He notes elsewhere that the mathematician, descriptively speaking, says nothing. The same may be said of the composer, who, if he were to attempt a description (i.e. a limitation) of the set of ecstasies apparent through (i.e. unlimited by) his composition, would fail miserably and necessarily. But neither the composer nor the mathematician must, for this reason, be silent.
This brings to mind the old maxim, "He who knows does not speak, and he who speaks does not know," to which I would hastily reply, "That's another wonderful idea to get rid of." LOL
I remember reading something Wittgenstein once wrote and thinking, "This may well be worth understanding, but I don't think I want to think hard enough to attain that understanding." I encountered the same thing with some of Kierkegaard's writings, and it probably indicates either that my IQ is just not up to par or that I'm sometimes too lazy to want to dig through multiple layers of semi-penetrable thought. Fortunately, reality treats fools kindly, and forgives them for their failure to pursue overly torturous forms of thinking. Rumi's play has far more appeal even though I can appreciate the effort expended by W, et al.