default header

Theory

An Insomniac's Reading List

Moderator: JC Denton

An Insomniac's Reading List

Unread postby icycalm » 02 Jul 2008 15:28

Because of the recent discussion in the NGJ thread, I decided to post a list of all the books one must read in order to be able to fully understand my upcoming book. I have actually done this in the book itself, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to give a head-start to those of you who find the subject interesting and want to start making progress right away.

Note that I have arranged the titles in an order which I think will help you better understand what's going on (i.e. it's NOT a chronological order). So it's no use picking up Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation right away, because you won't even be able to get past the first fucking paragraph. (On the other hand, there's something to be said for skipping ahead -- Baudrillard's writing is utterly fascinating, and a desire to decipher him can be a powerful motive to sustain one's interest through the long effort required to achieve this.)

So here we go:

Schopenhauer
All the essays linked on the sidebar of this page, from bottom to top:
http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_authorship_and_style/

Nietzsche (Note: The best English translations are by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale)
The Gay Science
Beyond Good and Evil
On the Genealogy of Morals
Twilight of the Idols
The Anti-Christ
Ecce Homo
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
The Will to Power
Human, All Too Human
Daybreak
Untimely Meditations
The Birth of Tragedy

Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Baudrillard
Simulacra and Simulation
America
The Consumer Society
In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities
Symbolic Exchange and Death
The Transparency of Evil
The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact

I have a lot more advice to give on this subject, and I am perfectly willing to help people out with their studies, answer questions on the way, etc. The main thing is that you must be prepared to do the work. I am not going to teach people anything in this thread -- I will simply point you towards the right direction whenever you run into difficulties, get stuck, etc.
Last edited by icycalm on 16 Oct 2009 19:23, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby raphael » 02 Jul 2008 15:44

Is there nothing in Wittgenstein's work that could serve as an introduction to his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?
Last edited by raphael on 12 Dec 2008 13:33, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby icycalm » 02 Jul 2008 18:03

Okay, here's some more points:

First off, about the Tractatus, which will frustrate many people... What's important to understand is that the Tractatus is not really a philosophical book -- it is a book about logic. Wittgenstein himself was really merely a logician. So the Tractatus is basically a tool, with the help of which you will become capable of distinguishing between logic and illogic, between reality and fantasy.

So it doesn't really matter WHEN you read the Tractatus, and Nietzsche's books are in no way prerequisites to understanding it. I merely placed it in the middle of the list... well, because I had to place it somewhere.

What exactly does the Tractatus deal with? There's a passage somewhere in The Gay Science where Nietzsche says:

"Mystical explanations are thought to be deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial."

What Wittgenstein basically does in the Tractatus is prove the above proposition. Now to understand this proof is very difficult, because it is based on Frege's logic and includes lots of involved mathematical concepts. But -- as in Mathematics -- you don't really need to understand the proof of a theorem in order to make use of all the consequences that follow from it. As long as you trust the people who verified the proof (as you well you should -- Bertrand Russell himself could find nothing wrong with it) you can simply use the consequences as you see fit.

The Tractatus is really the most difficult book on that list, and apart from a few specialists no one will be able to understand all of it. But several passages in the beginning, and several passages in the end, as well as a few here and there scattered in the middle, are perfectly comprehensible if you are smart enough. Most of the introduction too (written by Bertrand Russell) is also very comprehensible, and will help people make sense of the rest of the book.

Personally, it took me two-three months until the full consequences of the book became clear to me. I used to carry it with me everywhere, in the metro, at restaurants, etc. and I'd simply flick it open at a random page and read for a while. Every time I understood a little more of it it was like I had been struck by a thunderbolt...

So yeah, it doesn't really matter when you pick it up. In any case there will be a section in my book where I will explain in plain language everything that one needs to understand from the Tractatus. I could explain it here too, it would only take me a couple of pages or so, but at any rate it helps a lot if you have been exposed to these ideas before you read my explanations.

So here is the logic behind the structure of the reading list:

-Nietzche will help you understand the past
-Baudrillard will help you understand the present
-I will help you understand the future (lol, etc.)

-And Wittgenstein will give you one of the most important tools you'll need in order to understand all three of us

The structure I outlined above is a very important point. You have no chance of understanding the future without first having understood the present and the past. And you have no chance of understanding the present without first having understood the past. Everything starts with Nietzsche...
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 13 Jul 2008 20:30

Two very helpful links:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - IEP
http://www.iep.utm.edu/


These are the serious alternatives to the completely dreadful Wikipedia articles on philosophy.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ViewtifulZFO » 30 Sep 2008 03:08

Those two encyclopedias were actually recommended to me by my current philosophy professor - they are extremely helpful in understanding ancient Greek philosophy (the Prescoratics and the Sophist, in my case), so I would imagine the Nietzche, Baudrillard, and Wittgenstein articles would be written by experts on the writers. Of course, they're just a start, but your articles have definitely piqued my interest in Wittgenstein and his Tractatus. I had already been introduced to Nietzche in one of his unreleased (as far as I can tell) works, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, and Baudrillard (embarrassingly enough) from a documentary about the Matrix film series.

Is there any way to get a sufficiently good translation of these works online, or are the specific translations you use only available in print? I imagine others would be interested in knowing this as well (otherwise, I'll just visit my library or something, but online copies would be convenient in the same vein as the George Orwell archive).

As far as I know, The complete archive of Nietzche works from the Wikipedia page is indeed down, unfortunately, so I will have to wait to read it.
ViewtifulZFO
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 18:18

Unread postby icycalm » 30 Sep 2008 14:24

ViewtifulZFO wrote:Those two encyclopedias were actually recommended to me by my current philosophy professor - they are extremely helpful in understanding ancient Greek philosophy (the Prescoratics and the Sophist, in my case)


That's not the purpose of encyclopedias. The only way to understand ancient Greek philosophy is to read ancient Greek philosophy. The only way to understand Baudrillard is to read Baudrillard, etc. etc. The purpose of the encyclopedia is as a quick, handy reference, to look up names/works/etc. which you come across during your studies. For understanding, encyclopedias are quite useless and can often be seriously misleading (even the better ones). Just consider that encyclopedia-writers shy away from making judgements and attempt to appear as "objective" as they can, all the while ignoring the fact that objectivity is an illusion.

ViewtifulZFO wrote:Is there any way to get a sufficiently good translation of these works online, or are the specific translations you use only available in print?


All Nietzsche translations I have seen online are not good. I mentioned this above: for Nietzsche there's only Kaufmann and Hollingdale. Accept substitutes at your peril. As for Baudrillard, it's not like you have a choice. Very few of his works have been translated by more than one person.

ViewtifulZFO wrote:I imagine others would be interested in knowing this as well (otherwise, I'll just visit my library or something, but online copies would be convenient in the same vein as the George Orwell archive).


Well, Orwell wrote in English, so of course online works fine. But the copyrights of the Kaufmann and Hollingdale translations have not expired (to say nothing of the Baudrillard translations), so you'll need to buy books.

ViewtifulZFO wrote:As far as I know, The complete archive of Nietzche works from the Wikipedia page is indeed down, unfortunately, so I will have to wait to read it.


The archive sucked anyway. The translations were at best mediocre, and half the pages from some works were missing, which as far as I am concerned is a practice that should be considered a crime against humanity. With works like these you miss one page you miss everything.


edit: Just checked the archive again and it appears that a few of the translations are indeed by Kaufmann, so the copyright on at least some of them must have expired...
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Nookel » 26 Oct 2008 20:32

Hi, I'm new to the forum and i just wanted to say that i think you are doing a superb job with this site, keep up the good work!

But this is not the subject of this post.

I have ordered "The Gay Science" and plan to read it soon, however while browsing through your articles I stumbled upon a paragraph which struck me as rather odd.

I am talking about the one in the article "The Death of Art and Transaesthetics" that begins with "Of the theater...".
I do have an opinion on the paragraph but I have this feeling I'm missing Nietzsche point so before I voice my opinion I think it is essential that I First understand the thing I am voicing my opinion about.

If you could clarify or elaborate a bit then I am sure I will be able to understand it.

Thanks in advance.

P.S
English is not my native tongue and while I do try to write as clearly and with minimal mistakes as possible it will be inevitable that I make some.
Nookel
 
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:11
Location: Ramat-Hasharon, Israel

Unread postby icycalm » 27 Oct 2008 00:30

Hmmmm, yeah. That is one pretty deep passage, my friend -- and also one that is profoundly connected with the subject of videogames. But since I will be discussing it at length in my book, you are going to have to wait for that, I am afraid.

In the meantime, I will give you a quick answer. Nietzsche says that "Whoever finds enough tragedy and comedy in himself, probably does best when he stays away from the theater."

Now why does he say that? What are we supposed to learn from this?

This is what you want to know.

And I ask you: Do you think it is preferable to have sex or to watch other people go at it?

This is what he means. And this is what you should take away from this. Doing is always better than watching.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Nookel » 27 Oct 2008 15:34

Thanks for the quick response. I will definitely wait to read your book but for now I just have one little thing that bugs me and I will give this subject a rest.

The thing I find odd in this statement is that while I do agree it is preferable to have sex than watching other people do it, there are a lot of movies that portray people in situations or tragedies I would rather not experience myself (of course almost every tragedy can serve to improve us as human beings but if the improvement is smaller then the price I would rather watch other people do it).

Also, are you planning on publishing the book and selling it or post it on your site?
Nookel
 
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:11
Location: Ramat-Hasharon, Israel

Unread postby icycalm » 28 Oct 2008 20:10

Nookel wrote:The thing I find odd in this statement is that while I do agree it is preferable to have sex than watching other people do it, there are a lot of movies that portray people in situations or tragedies I would rather not experience myself


This is understandable. No one likes to find himself in situations for which he lacks the necessary strength to overcome. But there exist other people, far stronger than you, who would like to experience these situations, not merely watch them. For THEM, the "doing is better than watching" rule still applies. As for you... well, that's what the movies are for. In Nietzsche's words:

The strongest ideas and passions brought before those who are not capable of ideas and passions but only of intoxication! And here they are employed as a means to produce intoxication! Theater and music as the hashish-smoking and betel-chewing of the European! Who will ever relate the whole history of narcotica? -- It is almost the history of "culture," of our so-called higher culture."

Nookel wrote:of course almost every tragedy can serve to improve us as human beings


This is largely a myth. Can a rabbit be "improved" by watching a panther tear apart its next victim? A rabbit will always be a rabbit no matter how many wondrous sights are played out in front of its eyes, and the same thing applies more or less to human beings. More on this in the book.

Nookel wrote:Also, are you planning on publishing the book and selling it or post it on your site?


The book will be in paper form and will not be free, but the exact price has not been decided yet.


PS.

Nookel wrote:but if the improvement is smaller then the price I would rather watch other people do it).


The "improvement" is ALWAYS equal to the price. There are no special deals or bargains in life: you only ever get what you pay for.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Nookel » 28 Oct 2008 23:16

Thanks a lot, I will wait to read your book although I doubt it will be easy to obtain here in Israel.
Nookel
 
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:11
Location: Ramat-Hasharon, Israel

Unread postby The Novelist » 24 Nov 2008 14:14

Are there any philosophers' writings that you feel are either wrong or at least in opposition to your book? I'm most interested in your view on modern philosophers (The Gang of Four, Post-Structuralists,etc.), although I'd be happy to know of past philosophers as well.
The Novelist
 
Joined: 24 Nov 2008 12:20

Unread postby icycalm » 24 Nov 2008 17:11

Never heard of the Gang of Four. Going by the name, it doesn't sound like philosophy at all. Philosophers do not create "gangs". It is a lonely occupation.

As for post-structuralism, it's all rubbish. Perhaps one could find a diamond or two in all that rubbish if one was willing to devote the time, but then again there's always something valuable to found in all trash heaps. That doesn't say anything for the people who created them.

The only 20th century philosopher who had substantial things to say was Baudrillard. Everyone else is merely a footnote, and most not even that.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby The Novelist » 24 Nov 2008 18:24

"Gang of Four*" is just an unofficial nickname for four rather well-known French Structuralists. I meant: Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, and Barthes. Not a very physically intimidating gang.

As for Post-Structuralism, I had considered Baudrillard to be a member of that philosophical movement. However its rare to find a person to admit to being a "Post-Structuralist", so I wouldn't argue against you.

Anyway, I was only curious if you had any specific arguments against other philosophers. If not, I'll just patiently wait for your book then.

*Coincidentally they are the name of my favorite band, so maybe thats why it stuck in my head.
The Novelist
 
Joined: 24 Nov 2008 12:20

Unread postby icycalm » 24 Nov 2008 23:40

The Novelist wrote:"Gang of Four*" is just an unofficial nickname for four rather well-known French Structuralists. I meant: Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, and Barthes. Not a very physically intimidating gang.


In that case the last three had a few worthwhile points to make, and Baudrillard extensively read and used ideas from Levi-Strauss and Barthes (haven't read them personally, but for the time being I trust Baudrillard to have taken from the everything worth taking). Lacan was a clown.

The Novelist wrote:As for Post-Structuralism, I had considered Baudrillard to be a member of that philosophical movement.


Philosophical "movements" are usually misunderstandings by those who are standing on the outside. They are a way for people who don't understand what's going on to pretend they do. Instead of discussing the matter at hand you just use an "-ism" and pretend that everyone already understands it. But in reality it is always specific ideas that are worth discussing, not "-isms", and it is always the lone, even isolated, thinker who has something worthwhile to say about them. This has been true of Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Baudrillard -- the greatest philosophers yet -- whom everyone hated while they lived, and no one understood after they died.

The Novelist wrote:Anyway, I was only curious if you had any specific arguments against other philosophers.


Of course I do, but if you were expecting me to start randomly listing them for you, you have not only missed the point of this thread, but are also being an ass in the process.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Afterburn » 08 Jan 2009 08:16

I picked up Baudrillard's System of Objects the other week. You don't have it listed as one of your recommended Baudrillard texts, but I figured since it was Baudrillard, it has to be worth a read. Have you read it?
User avatar
Afterburn
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 01:04
Location: Canada

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Jan 2009 08:49

No, I haven't. It's his first book, and therefore not quite necessary for our purposes, since he covers the same ground again in later works. In "The Consumer Society" for example, he takes up again his theory of objects, but enlarges it to include even cultural products and things like university degrees, art, etc. So, I mean, of course it can't hurt to see the beginning of his thought, but it's not essential.

So yes, I have read, in all, about half of Baudrillard's work, and I am convinced I've taken from him pretty much all he had to give me. Nowadays, whenever I go back to read more of him, I never really learn anything new -- it's of course good mental exercise, and his prose is always very enjoyable, but there are 5 or 6 main points in his, let us say, "philosophical system", and once you've grasped them there's not much reason to keep going back. He wrote quite a bit more than he should have, and there's A LOT of repetition in his work, especially post-2000, but hey, a man has to make a living I guess. Other philosophers, such as most of the Greeks, and more recent ones like Montaigne, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, were already financially secure, and did not expect to make a dime out of philosophy, which is why their works are so much more condensed and brief.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 08 Jan 2009 08:59

Here's a (not comprehensive) list of his works from the French Wikipedia:

Le Système des objets (1968), éd. Gallimard, Paris.
La Société de consommation (1970)
Pour une critique de l'économie politique du signe (1972)
Le Miroir de la production (1973)
L’Échange symbolique et la mort (1976), éd. Gallimard, Paris.
La Consommation des signes (1976)
Oublier Foucault (1977), col. Espace critique, dir. Paul Virilio ; éd. Galilée, Paris.
L’Effet Beaubourg (1977)
À l'ombre des majorités silencieuses (1978)
L’Ange de stuc (1978)
De la séduction (1979)
Enrico Baj (1980)
Cool Memories (1980-1985)
Simulacres et simulation (1981)
À l'ombre des majorités silencieuses (1982)
Les Stratégies fatales (1983), éd. Grasset, Paris.
La Gauche divine (1985), éd. Grasset, Paris.
L’Autre par lui-même (1987), éd. Galilée, Paris.
Cool Memories 2 (1987-1990)
La Transparence du mal (1990)
La Guerre du Golfe n'a pas eu lieu (1991)
L’Illusion de la fin ou la grève des événements (1992)
Fragments, Cool Memories 3 (1991-1995)
Figures de l'altérité (1994)
La Pensée radicale (1994)
Le Crime parfait (1995)
Le Paroxyste indifférent (1997)
Amérique (1997)
Écran total (1997)
De l'exorcisme en politique, ou la conjuration des imbéciles (1997)
Car l'illusion ne s'oppose pas à la réalité (1997)
Le Complot de l'art (1997)
Illusion, désillusion esthétiques (1997)
La grande mutation ; enquête sur la fin d'un millénaire (1998)
À l'ombre du millénaire ou le suspens de l'An 2000 (1998)
L’Échange impossible (1999)
Sur le destin (1999)
Sur la photographie (1999)
Cool Memories IV (2000)
Les Objets singuliers : architecture & philosophie (2000), dialogue avec l'architecte Jean Nouvel
Le Complot de l'art, entrevues (2000), éd Sens & Tonka, Paris ; Semiotext(e), New York.
D'un fragment à l'autre (2001)
Mots de passe (2000)
L’Élevage de poussière (2001)
Le Ludique et le policier (2001)
Au royaume des aveugles (2002)
Power Inferno ; Requiem pour les Twins Towers ; Hypothèse sur le terrorisme ; La violence du Mondial (2002)[réf. nécessaire]
L’Esprit du terrorisme (2002)[réf. nécessaire]
Pataphysique (2002)[réf. nécessaire]
La Violence du monde avec Edgar Morin ; éd. du Félin, Paris ; (2003)
Au jour le jour, 2000-2001 (2003)[réf. nécessaire]
Le Pacte de lucidité ou l'intelligence du mal (2004)[réf. nécessaire]
Cahier de l’Herne n°84, février 2005
Cool Memories V (2005), éd. Galilée, Paris.
À propos d'Utopie, entretien avec Jean-Louis Violeau (2005)[réf. nécessaire]
Oublier Artaud, dialogue avec Sylvère Lotringer (2005), éd. Semiotext(e) (?), New York.
Les Exilés du dialogue ; Jean Baudrillard et Enrique Valiente-Noailles, entretien (2005), éd. Galilée, Paris


Many of these are just single essays, but I mean, yeah. His "genuine-ideas-per-number-of-words" ratio is far, far lower than those of people like Montaigne or Nietzsche.

Then again, his ideas ARE very hard ones to grasp, so I guess the extra material might be helpful to those who have trouble doing so...

Then AGAIN, he COULD have explained his ideas in much simpler terms if he wanted to... or at least I THINK he could...

Yeah, Baudrillard still perplexes me a bit. I am not sure how much WILLFUL obscurantism there is in his work. Perhaps he really could not express himself in simpler terms. Perhaps he didn't want to because by embellishing his prose he made it sound more poetic, and therefore more enjoyable to read as prose, as opposed to as philosophy. Perhaps he only did it for the extra money...

Unfortunately, he died a couple of months before I started reading his work, so there's no way for me to ask him. I can only speculate... And in the end I guess it doesn't really matter.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ViewtifulZFO » 14 Jan 2009 20:01

Baudrillard's method looks a bit similar to Kierkegaard's multitude of writings (and, for the adventurous Kierkegaard reader, nearly 7000 pages of journals never published and completely scattershot), but Kierkegaard's pseudonyms make him a much more difficult figure to grasp overall because his confusion is intentional - probably in the same manner as Wittgenstein. Only those who actually have had those thoughts should be able to figure it out in the first place

Yeah, I've been reading alot of Kierkegaard, mostly due to my Christian background.

Actually, my real question is why Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is listed but not his Philosophical Investigations. Do you agree with the former and disagree with the latter? I could see this being the case, but I figured I may as well ask while I read the Tractatus.
ViewtifulZFO
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 18:18

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Jan 2009 06:31

ViewtifulZFO wrote:but Kierkegaard's pseudonyms make him a much more difficult figure to grasp overall because his confusion is intentional - probably in the same manner as Wittgenstein.


There is no intentional confusion in Wittgenstein. He is the last person on earth who would do such a thing. That's what the Tractatus is about: clarity in writing.

ViewtifulZFO wrote:Actually, my real question is why Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is listed but not his Philosophical Investigations. Do you agree with the former and disagree with the latter? I could see this being the case, but I figured I may as well ask while I read the Tractatus.


It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement. The only book by Wittgenstein which is useful for our purposes is the Tractatus. I've skimmed through the Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, and didn't come across anything of use. Very annoying writing style too, the so-called "late Wittgenstein".
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ViewtifulZFO » 15 Jan 2009 08:53

icycalm wrote:There is no intentional confusion in Wittgenstein. He is the last person on earth who would do such a thing. That's what the Tractatus is about: clarity in writing.


Definitely a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to say is that if you were not already thinking what either author was thinking (for Kierkegaard, the hypocrisy of the Danish Church, or for Wittgenstein setting the boundaries of what language can express), then it will be very confusing for the reader - it's not intentional by any means.

icycalm wrote:It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement. The only book by Wittgenstein which is useful for our purposes is the Tractatus. I've skimmed through the Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, and didn't come across anything of use. Very annoying writing style too, the so-called "late Wittgenstein".


I see. Well, I am talking about a book I know little of (though I did just order a copy), so my bad if I'm wasting your time. I'm not necessarily surrounded by people with which to discuss this subject, nor have I really been investigating philosophy for that long as of yet, so I apologize for looking like a fool.
ViewtifulZFO
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 18:18

Unread postby ViewtifulZFO » 05 Feb 2009 05:20

I've been reading the Tractatus lately, but I have a question:

Wittgenstein is attempting to clarify the limits of language, correct? Does this mean I could still, in all likelihood, have a religious experience (since it doesn't have anything to do with language, it is thought)?
ViewtifulZFO
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 18:18

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 05:31

Good question! I am afraid however that I can't answer it because it is nonsensical. For your benefit, so that you can more easily understand me, I will try to explain this to you in two stages, the second of which will override the first.

1. Yes, you could still have a "religious" experience, or, to be more precise, as Wittgenstein calls them, a "mystical" one. However, you wouldn't be able to communicate it. Every time you opened your mouth and tried to put the experience into words, it would come out as nonsense, and of course no one would be able to understand you.

2. However, this means that the words "religious" and "mystical" themselves must be nonsensical, because if they weren't they would be communicating something that cannot be communicated. So the real answer to your question is that your question cannot be answered, because it is itself nonsensical. It is exactly like the question "Can the sun be happy?" I cannot answer "Yes, the sun can be happy", nor "No, the sun can't be happy", because both answers would be nonsensical. Similarly, I cannot answer "Yes, you can have a religious/mystical experience", nor "No, you cannot have a religious/mystical experience", because in both cases my responses would not make sense. What IS a religious or a mystical experience, after all? If you can't communicate it, how can you define it?

"Religious" and "mystical" are just empty, useless words...
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ViewtifulZFO » 05 Feb 2009 05:39

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.
ViewtifulZFO
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 18:18

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Feb 2009 05:45

No it doesn't, lol. You have not understood a thing!

First off, everything is entirely subjective, so your no. 1 point is simply stupid. Forget it.

Then:

ViewtifulZFO wrote: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.


This entire paragraph is nonsense. You are saying that you "could have such a thing occur to me" when I have already explained to you that it is impossible to even talk about that "thing". Yet you are STILL talking about it!

There is no solution to this problem. As long as you keep talking about this you will be spouting nonsense.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Next

Return to Theory

cron