> I think this is what W. was trying to get at when he said (and I
> paraphrase) "Whereof philosophy cannot speak, philosophy must remain
> silent." From his perspective this kind of problem just isn't the sort of
> thing an academic discipline called philosophy can effectively address
> without corrupting itself.
>
The book sets up such a neat dichotomy between the two men that one wonders if things were so simple but what I took away was that W was so other worldly that moral problems simply did not interest him. He was incapable of engaging the world intellectually at that level or found it beneath his interest (not out of contempt but out of true lack of interest).
