h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wittgenstein was the philosopher who made one of my favorite comments on philosophy: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." He also said the following, possibly relevant to this discussion:

"It is a dogma of the Roman Church that the existence of God can be proved by natural reason. Now this dogma would make it impossible for me to be a Roman Catholic. If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him."

And yet Wittegnstein was a devout Christian. Funny old world, innit?

Well he received a Catholic burial, but he had no say in that . . .

He didn't call himself a believer, but admitted that he couldn't help looking at things from a religious perspective.

That quote (about the duty to defy a god who is merely a superman) is one of the best, from a man who provided many of the 20th century's greatest quotes.

Wittgenstein warned repeatedly against lettting your language run away with you. This light-hearted article on omniscience, time and eternity is an example of letting it do just that -- using words for things they can't contain, they're so far removed from their normal meaningful contexts.

One more Wittgenstein quote:
"My whole tendency and I believe the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language. This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to day something about the ultimate maning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science. What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it."

"Wittgenstein warned repeatedly against lettting your language run away with you."

I think Ludwig would have approved of another 20th century philosopher, Muhammad Ali, regarding Ali's straightforward use of language:

"It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up." (1977)

You can't help loving Ali. Disingenuous is the word.

Ludwig might have had a problem with "I was so great he couldn't even see me"?

- Leave that girl alone!

- Shut up! I'm world heavyweight boxing champion.

- And I am Wycombe Professor of Logic. We are both pre-eminent in our field, and I am telling you to leave that girl alone.

A. J. Ayer vs Mike Tyson (who is no philosopher at all, but it still feels somehow relevant.)

Hi! Sorry, I missed this thread!

But if you have a word, which though doesn't contain the thing it is attempting to describe, but is still the best word for the job, isn't that still the best word to use? How can things go undefined, and how can you define without using a word?

On Ethics specifically, if ethics is hopeless does this mean that it is a fruitless activity, and if so, where does that leave us?

I vaguely recall that Ludwig was an engineering student early on (I am also an engineer). I interpret his remarks to mean that ethics is not subject to scientific methods (experiment, analyze results, keep what works), but not that ethics is a fruitless pursuit. It just requires a different approach ... or something.

His point was that all the interesting things, anything of value, could not be dealt with in scientific, factual, verifiable speech. The difference between a happy person and a miserable person is that they have the same world - all the same facts - but different attitudes. Religion and ethics cannot be proved, or even debated rationally; you have to live it to understand it. Try A963579 once I get my GuideML working.

"Religion and ethics cannot be proved, or even debated rationally; you have to live it to understand it."

So it's like jazz? "It don't mean a thing if it don't have that swing". (And you cannot explain it ..) I read Wittgenstein to say that he DID live it (religion and ethics), and respected it, but could not explain it.

So are we trying to debate it rationally?