Moderator: JC Denton
by icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 05:49
by ViewtifulZFO » 05 Feb 2009 06:04
by Afterburn » 05 Feb 2009 07:20
ViewtifulZFO wrote:Ah...
So, I could actually have such a thing occur to me, but the phrase "religious experience" doesn't have any useful truth content or descriptive content, either. There's no picture I can create of that, per se. So it would be.
1. Entirely subjective
2. Inexpressible
That makes sense.
by icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 11:03
Wittgenstein wrote:Thus the aim of the book is to draw a limit to thought, or rather -- not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts: for in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought). It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be drawn, and what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense.
Wittgenstein wrote:There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
by icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 11:40
by raphael » 05 Feb 2009 12:20
icycalm wrote:There is no doubt (at least to me) that if something can happen in this world, human beings will find a way to express it (i.e. reflect it) in language.
The world itself is contradictory; or at least, like my statements, it seems so. That is to say, it cannot be adequately expressed in language, because the world contains language, hence cannot be fully and perfectly expressed by it.
by icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 12:35
raphael wrote:Either I didn't get what you meant here or you just disproved it with your next post:
raphael wrote:Which I agree with. Well, how could I not, has this plain obvious?
by raphael » 05 Feb 2009 13:05
by icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 13:20
raphael wrote:By saying it is obvious I am just saying I see it as irrefutable.
by ViewtifulZFO » 06 Feb 2009 18:25
by icycalm » 06 Feb 2009 18:45
by icycalm » 06 Feb 2009 19:01
What does Nietzsche say about logical atomism?
I only ask because some persons I have been talking to say that Nietzsche and Wittgenstein disagree on this point. Is this true, or are they incorrect?
Schopenhauer wrote:The book-philosopher merely reports what one person has said and another meant, or the objections raised by a third, and so on. He compares different opinions, ponders, criticises, and tries to get at the truth of the matter; herein on a par with the critical historian. For instance, he will set out to inquire whether Leibnitz was not for some time a follower of Spinoza, and questions of a like nature. The curious student of such matters may find conspicuous examples of what I mean in Herbart’s Analytical Elucidation of Morality and Natural Right, and in the same author’s Letters on Freedom. Surprise may be felt that a man of the kind should put himself to so much trouble; for, on the face of it, if he would only examine the matter for himself, he would speedily attain his object by the exercise of a little thought. But there is a small difficulty in the way. It does not depend upon his own will. A man can always sit down and read, but not—think. It is with thoughts as with men; they cannot always be summoned at pleasure; we must wait for them to come. Thought about a subject must appear of itself, by a happy and harmonious combination of external stimulus with mental temper and attention; and it is just that which never seems to come to these people.
by Afterburn » 08 Feb 2009 02:27
icycalm wrote:The question is not so much about what can happen in this world, but what can happen outside of it. There is no doubt (at least to me) that if something can happen in this world, human beings will find a way to express it (i.e. reflect it) in language. But the problem with the mystical/religious propositions is that they never refer to things in this world -- they always refer to things outside of it. However, since we have defined the world as "everything", talking about things "outside of everything" is a contradictio in adjecto -- it is simply nonsense.
by icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 16:08
Afterburn wrote:Yeah. What I take this world to mean is everything that humans can comprehend as biological creatures
icycalm wrote:However, since we have defined the world as "everything", talking about things "outside of everything" is a contradictio in adjecto -- it is simply nonsense.
Afterburn wrote:we have access to only a part of a larger reality.
Afterburn wrote:What is beyond human comprehension is, to me, what Wittgenstein means by outside of the world.
Afterburn wrote:Things very likely happen that we aren't able to comprehend
Afterburn wrote:but because we don't have access to them they are outside of our world -- which means for all intents and purposes, they don't happen. Well, that might be an illogical leap
Afterburn wrote:That's if by "everything" Wittgenstein does indeed mean "everything not beyond the limits of human comprehension," which is how I interpret it.
by Afterburn » 08 Feb 2009 17:11
icycalm wrote:*Sigh*
Nice one. So rocks are not part of this world. Jesus Christ. Can't you fucking read?
icycalm wrote:More nonsense. What are you, Christian? A "larger reality" lol.
icycalm wrote:My students do not seem to be getting very far, I am afraid.
by icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 17:59
Afterburn wrote:I abhor religion and spirituality in any sense, really.
Afterburn wrote:and it is possible they are other planes of existence that we can't even fathom because of the way our brains work.
Afterburn wrote:If things are beyond are comprehension it is not because there is some god or supernatural force, but because our biology lacks in whatever areas.
Afterburn wrote:Admittedly, I don't know if this has been proven false or not and I could definitely be way off base here.
Afterburn wrote:As long as my mistakes lead me toward the right answer in the future, they are part of the process.
by icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 18:17
by icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 19:16
Afterburn wrote:I understand that without any difficulty at all.
Nietzsche wrote:To invent fables about a world 'other' than this one has no meaning at all, unless an instinct of slander, detraction and suspicion against life has gained the upper hand in us: in that case, we avenge ourselves against life with a phantasmagoria of 'another'; a 'better' life.
by icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 19:18
raphael wrote:icycalm wrote:There is only one sense of "spirituality" which makes sense, and it is nonsense to abhor it.
Very good one.
Seems like spirituality often poses huge logical problems to us atheists.
by raphael » 08 Feb 2009 19:45
icycalm wrote:There is no doubt (at least to me) that if something can happen in this world, human beings will find a way to express it (i.e. reflect it) in language.
by icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 20:04
raphael wrote:Concerning previous message, you got me a little confused, as I thought paradise and hell, for example, were clearly not supposed to be in this world, even from a christian point of view.
Well, as related to the main subject this is a detail. I got the picture anyway.
raphael wrote:icycalm wrote:There is no doubt (at least to me) that if something can happen in this world, human beings will find a way to express it (i.e. reflect it) in language.
Not too sure about this. I had the opposite impression.
Can you elaborate?