default header

Theory

An Insomniac's Reading List

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 05:49

I'll try to put it another way for you.

What is the point of discussing whether a thing can happen to you or not, if you can't even define what that thing is? Why are you asking me this question? If I ask you, "Hey man, can this thing happen to me?", wouldn't you ask me to define that "thing"? How could you answer my question if you don't know what thing I am talking about? We must both know what this thing is before we can begin to talk about it, after all.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ViewtifulZFO » 05 Feb 2009 06:04

There we go.

That's why Wittgenstein says he has solved all philosophical problems - he removes the riddles of metaphysics because these questions aren't questions at all but nonsensical statements. They are beyond the boundaries of what can and cannot be said.

It takes a while to get used to this in practical application, I have to say. Everyone has been trained so long to talk in flowery language that the habit is hard to remove.

Without having read this, I found many of the articles on your website difficult to comprehend or seemingly "insensitive", as it were, but now I understand why you are so vehement about specificity.
ViewtifulZFO
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 18:18

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 06:44

Yes, people think I am insensitive, whereas the truth is that everything I say and do stems from nothing else than extreme sensitivity.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby 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.


If I understand Wittgenstein correctly, if you can't express something clearly, it can't happen. If things can happen, they can be spoken about in a way that makes sense.
User avatar
Afterburn
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 01:04
Location: Canada

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 11:03

It's not that simple I am afraid -- at least not for Wittgenstein.

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.

Now, this is my understanding of this matter. It is not certain that Wittgenstein himself saw things exactly this way. In fact, from my study of the man (which I admit is fairly limited outside of the Tractatus), he does not seem to share this view.

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.


See also this book, from about the middle of page 95 onwards:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vPRXnj ... r#PPA95,M1

Having pointed out all this, I must explain that, for me, the question of what Wittgenstein believed or not is unimportant. The only thing that is important is what he wrote, and what I can take from that that is of use to me for my own purposes (and besides, it is impossible to figure out what he really thought and be 100% certain of it, even if one were inclined to attempt to do so -- which as I explained I am not).

When all is said and done, Wittgenstein is useful to me for showing that ethical and mystical propositions are nonsensical, and must necessarily be so. However, even if Wittgenstein had never existed, I could still show the same things myself with the help of quantum mechanics. And, beyond even this, I could still show the same things with the help of simple, common-sensical statements.

So I have three different ways of arriving at the same conclusions (that ethics and mysticism are nonsense), which is why I am not too bothered about what Wittgenstein meant or did not mean; what he believed or did not believe. At the end of the day -- and here comes the ad hominem! -- he was gay, and gay people should not really be expected to have the courage to admit to themselves the nature of the universe -- which is cruel, uncaring and merciless -- in a word, "inhumane". Like all weak people, they might begin philosophizing for whatever reason, but they will never have the courage to draw the ultimate conclusions -- they will never have the courage to push every hypothesis to the very end -- because illusions of "goodness" and "kindness" and "altruism" are necessary for the preservation of their beings. Hence, Wittgenstein's comments which are quoted in that book I linked above.

Hope all this makes some kind of sense to you guys. If not, perhaps you'll understand more if you read my book, whenever the hell I get around to publishing it.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 11:40

Whoever's reading this will have me pegged as a homophobic fascist misogynist, lol -- and yet I love women, my best friend is gay and, like Nietzsche, I despise fascists almost as much as the anti-fascists.

But how to explain to people that there is nothing contradictory in these apparent self-contradictions! -- 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.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby 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.

Either I didn't get what you meant here or you just disproved it with your next post:
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.

Which I agree with. Well, how could I not, has this is plain obvious ?

Do you see me getting something wrong with the first quote ?
Last edited by raphael on 05 Feb 2009 12:40, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby 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:


The two passages refer to different things. The first one to something that happens IN the world, the second to the ENTIRE world itself.

raphael wrote:Which I agree with. Well, how could I not, has this plain obvious?


Raphael, you have the slightly annoying habit of calling everything I say "obvious". Yes, indeed, everything is obvious, but only after you have understood it, a process which takes a lot of work and thought -- regardless of how intelligent you may be. The things I am explaining here, and the things I will explain, took me a long time to understand, so you can see how having someone pipe in every now and then and call them "obvious" might get on my nerves. If everything is so obvious to you perhaps you should stop reading this website and start your own and explain everything in there. If you do a good job of it you might even save me the effort of having to do it myself.

I am not pissed off. I just wish you would stop calling everything I say "obvious". Yes, in the last resort, it is obvious, so there's no need to repeat this all the time. We know.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby raphael » 05 Feb 2009 13:05

This is not meant disrespectful. I know it takes time and effort to understand these things; it took me a lot, and yet I am often unable to explain them as clearly as I should (which proves I didn't even understand perfectly). By saying it is obvious I am just saying I see it as irrefutable. In my view everything in the world is "obvious": it is plain in front of our eyes to see, only we are the blinds and dumbs.

I find it painful to say "I agree" when I know the thing is true and as such doesn't leave me the choice to agree or not.

Now I understand how it sounds, I'll stop doing it.

My bad for poor choice of word I guess.
Last edited by raphael on 05 Feb 2009 13:23, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 13:20

raphael wrote:By saying it is obvious I am just saying I see it as irrefutable.


Actually, this is not true. I sometimes, in my weaker moments, wish it were, but it isn't.

It's a subtle point. Since nothing can be proved in this world, nothing can be refuted either. That doesn't make a theory irrefutable. A theory is irrefutable not when it can't be refuted (because there's always the possibility of someone coming along in the future with a refutation), but when it can be positively proved. But nothing can be proved, because to prove something one would have to be situated outside the world -- in order to see everything, and seize the world in its entirety -- stop it in its tracks and "photograph" it, so to speak, in order to use the photograph as evidence.

But no one can be situated outside the world because the world is everything, et cetera et cetera...

So you can't prove anything, and you can't refute anything -- the only thing you can do is see, with your own eyes. But what one person can see depends on the kind of eyes he has -- the bat and the rabbit, for example, the shark and the hawk, do not see the same things. They live in different universes -- and so do different kinds of people.

(All of this can ultimately be demonstrated through quantum mechanics, by the way.)
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ViewtifulZFO » 06 Feb 2009 18:25

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?
ViewtifulZFO
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 18:18

Unread postby icycalm » 06 Feb 2009 18:45

What is the point of posting in this thread, if you are not going to follow my advice? Did you see me anywhere talk about "logical atomism" or other retarded "-isms" like that? Did I not give you a list of books to read? Do any of them mention this retarded "-ism"? Do I look like an encyclopedia of philosophy to you?

Either follow my advice, and come here for help when you get stuck somewhere, or go off on your own and best of luck to you.

P.S.

Logical atomism is a retarded invention of Anglo-Saxon analytical philosophers (i.e. pseudo-philosophers). The reason why it is retarded should become clear to you AFTER you have read ALL of Nietzsche. So get cracking.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 06 Feb 2009 19:01

A couple more things.

What does Nietzsche say about logical atomism?


If you have yet to figure out that the way to find out what a philosopher thinks about particular issues is to READ HIM, my advice would be to give up philosophy right now because you don't have what it takes to tackle it.

Moreover!

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?


Not only are you too lazy to attempt to think the matter over for yourself, you are too lazy to even READ these two philosophers in order to find out what they think! You ask "some persons" what their thoughts are on the subject, then you ask me -- everything in order to avoid doing a little bit of work yourself.

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.


http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_thinking_for_oneself/
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby 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.


Yeah. What I take this world to mean is everything that humans can comprehend as biological creatures; we have access to only a part of a larger reality. What is beyond human comprehension is, to me, what Wittgenstein means by outside of the world. Things very likely happen that we aren't able to comprehend, 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, but I think the point is we shouldn't concern ourselves with these things, so we might as well consider them as not happening.

That's if by "everything" Wittgenstein does indeed mean "everything not beyond the limits of human comprehension," which is how I interpret it.
User avatar
Afterburn
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 01:04
Location: Canada

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 16:08

*Sigh*

Afterburn wrote:Yeah. What I take this world to mean is everything that humans can comprehend as biological creatures


Nice one. So rocks are not part of this world. Jesus Christ. Can't you fucking read?

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.


More nonsense. What are you, Christian? A "larger reality" lol. Exactly the kind of talk you'd expect to hear from people living in the Dark Ages.

Afterburn wrote:What is beyond human comprehension is, to me, what Wittgenstein means by outside of the world.


I have never seen him use that phrase. That is my phrase. A phrase, as I have already explained, which is nonsense, which means that YOU CANNOT EXTRACT MEANING FROM IT -- which is exactly what you just tried to do.

Afterburn wrote:Things very likely happen that we aren't able to comprehend


More religious nonsense. The "very likely" is especially hilarious. I guess you used some sort of statistical analysis to arrive at the likelihood of something which "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


lol. You call illogical the ONLY logical thing that you said. Proof enough that you don't really know what you are saying.

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.


I repeat: I am the one who talked about "everything" -- not Wittgenstein. And there is no need to interpret the word "everything". If you have trouble understanding what "everything" means you might as well give up on philosophy right now, because you ain't gonna get anywhere.

...

My students do not seem to be getting very far, I am afraid.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby raphael » 08 Feb 2009 17:09

Seems like sometimes simplicity is too disturbing to be understood.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby 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?


Of course rocks are part of this world.

I didn't do a good job conveying what I meant to say, which is my fault.

icycalm wrote:More nonsense. What are you, Christian? A "larger reality" lol.


Nope. I abhor religion and spirituality in any sense, really.

What I meant by humans being "part of a larger reality" is that the way we have evolved makes us interpret the world in a certain way. Our biology dictates what our brains are capable of comprehending and perceiving, and it is possible they are other planes of existence that we can't even fathom because of the way our brains work. 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. Admittedly, I don't know if this has been proven false or not and I could definitely be way off base here.

icycalm wrote:My students do not seem to be getting very far, I am afraid.


As long as my mistakes lead me toward the right answer in the future, they are part of the process.

Thanks for clarification, icy.
User avatar
Afterburn
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 01:04
Location: Canada

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 17:59

Afterburn wrote:I abhor religion and spirituality in any sense, really.


There is only one sense of "spirituality" which makes sense, and it is nonsense to abhor it.

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.


"Other planes of existence" is a nonsensical phrase, fyi. It's hopeless, dude -- why don't you just give up? EVERY time you attempt to speak of some Other, some Above, some Beyond, your propositions will include indefinable terms and will therefore be nonsensical. So why don't you just give me a break and simply stop?

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.


NOTHING is "beyond comprehension". Things that we cannot understand -- do not exist, they are products of our imagination. Read Wittgenstein again. "If a question can be asked at all, it is also possible to answer it." Whenever you talk about "other" realities, or about things beyond comprehension, you play right into the hands of the religious monkeys and the scientific obscurantists.

Afterburn wrote:Admittedly, I don't know if this has been proven false or not and I could definitely be way off base here.


How could something that is purportedly "beyond human comprehension" be PROVED FALSE for fucks sakes? This is how one nonsense (the "beyond human comprehension" claptrap) leads you straight into another.

Afterburn wrote:As long as my mistakes lead me toward the right answer in the future, they are part of the process.


Spare me the banal self-improvement talk and start paying more attention to what you read and write. Brevity is your friend here. The more you write on matters such as these the more nonsense you will end up producing. Keep it simple and short, and pay attention to every word, and you might even end up writing something that makes sense.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 18:17

Let me attempt to give a definition of "everything" here for you guys, just for the hell of it. Seriously, I shouldn't have to do this; "everything" is about as self-explanatory as words get, but what the hell. Might as well show Afterburn how silly his posts look from where I am standing. So here goes:

The world (i.e. "everything") includes everything anyone could name or point to. And when I say "anyone" I really do mean anyone: including, for example, such fantastical beasts as gods.

So it doesn't matter who has seen or is capable of perceiving what. "Everything" includes everything that has already been discovered, everything that will be discovered, and everything that lies out there but perhaps will never be discovered. If Zeus appeared tomorrow and showed us "other planes of existence", then those other planes of existence would be included in the "everything", i.e. in the world, i.e. in THIS world, so they wouldn't be OTHER planes of existence. And all of this would be included in our "everything", in our definition of the world, of THIS world -- EVEN BEFORE ZEUS SHOWED IT TO US.

So our definition of the world ALREADY INCLUDES all other dimensions/hells/paradises/existences, and whatever other similar nonsensical claptrap human beings come up with under the influence of drugs or hallucinations. Which is why talking about OTHER dimensions, outside of this world, which as I have explained already includes all other dimensions and cannot do otherwise -- is nonsense.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Afterburn » 08 Feb 2009 18:47

I understand that without any difficulty at all.

I just wasn't sure of the scope of "everything," but this was a silly confusion-- for the answer is right there in the definition of the word itself.
User avatar
Afterburn
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 01:04
Location: Canada

Unread postby raphael » 08 Feb 2009 18:52

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.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Feb 2009 19:16

Afterburn wrote:I understand that without any difficulty at all.


Yeah, I am sure you do -- now that I have explained it to you. If it seems, by the way, that at times I express myself with excessive vehemence, it is only because that is the best way to explain things to people (well, that and also because I find I enjoy myself more when I am raging against something).

Back to the issue at hand: the important thing to understand is that the things which are included in our definition of everything/"the world" exhibit a, let us say, causal relationship between them. For something to be included in our world it must somehow INTERACT with our world -- for if something exists which in no way and at no point interacts with/touches our world, what would be the point in us thinking of it as part of it in the first place?

In this sense, the Christian paradise, for example, interacts with our world and should thus be included in it, if it exists. The connection of this world with the "other" world of the Christian paradise and hell is a causal one, after all -- do good things and you will go to paradise; do evil things and you will go to hell. There is a RULE which connects "this" world with the "other" one, so the other world is really connected with this one -- is therefore a part of it.

A genuine Other world would not come into contact with this one at any point and at any time in all eternity, and there would therefore be no rules that would connect them. Could such worlds exist? Of course, but if they exist NOT EVEN OUR GODS would be aware of them (because if they were, an indirect connection would exist, which would compel us to include these "other worlds" in our own).

So, any way you look at it, any talk of Other worlds is pointless and impossible. The only people who have any reason to talk about "other" worlds are those who are suffering in this one, as Nietzsche explained:

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.
Last edited by icycalm on 08 Feb 2009 19:21, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby 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.


What I meant was that the only consistent way to define spirituality is as "intelligence", and the only way to define intelligence is as understanding how the world works. The most spiritual men of all time have therefore always been the philosophers. Meanwhile, all kinds of stupid charlatans lay claim to "spiritualty", in exactly the same manner that all kinds of stupid charlatans lay claim to the word 'art'.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby raphael » 08 Feb 2009 19:45

Well put. I must admit I didn't get it that way.

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.
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 ?
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby 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.


You got nothing. If you had gotten it you would not have written the first paragraph.

Note that the "Christian point of view" is irrelevant -- Christians, and religious people in general, are not allowed to have a point of view, since everything they say is nonsense. What I did was take their concept of paradise and hell and apply logic to it, so what you get in the end is the "logical point of view of the Christian paradise and hell". And doing this I showed that, if the Christian paradise and hell really do exist, they are included in our definition of everything/the world.

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?


The world is made up of interconnected things. Because of this, a change in one thing affects everything else (something also shown by quantum mechanics). So if something can exist in this world, it will eventually, sooner or later (and, in fact, according to quantum mechanics, instantaneously) affect everything else. And this everything else includes us, of course, since we are part of this world. But if something affects us it means that we can perceive it, and if we can perceive something it means that, eventually, sooner or later, we'll be able to use language to reflect it.

QED.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

PreviousNext

Return to Theory