This is a wonderful account. My relationship to Wittgenstein is something I have spoken of in my 'homage' to his Tractatus. Needless to say everything in your note resonates. I am glad my little note evoked it! I suspect the excluded math part took into brilliant territory conclusions related to improbability and uncertainty and ultimate order and possibly ethics and aesthetics. I wonder if there is a similar effort to redeem the nachloss as in the cases of Nietzsche and Peirce.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:32 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, > > In teh main, I agree. But I do not think they, either one, were in any way > "voting FOR" anything, not for religion or anything any individual may > choose. They were both making systematic observations on truth & the > methodical ways of approaching a true understanding of what is real. > > It was in his early work (Tractatus) that Wittgenstein came into the > conclusion that what cannot be said, is best left unsaid. Left into silence > to convey. - Wittgenstein really did not write philosophy for years and > years to come. - But then he started to write philosphical notes again. > Published in the form of Philosphische Untersuchungen - Philosphical > Investigations. > > I find it most important that it was published as a bi-lingual edition, > both in German and in English. He expressed his ideas in two languages. > Both he was fluent with. > > I have discussed on the experience of meeting Wittgenstein in his lectures > with a cousin of G.H. von Wright, the editor and publisher of Wittgensteins > work, Johan von Wright. (I used to work with him). > > He described the experience of attending Wittgenstein's lecture a highly > awesome experience. The moment he entered the room was as if the whole > atmosphere were electrified in a second. > > I have met Georg von Wright many times and discussed with him, too. He > kept up close contact with students while he was a professor at the > department of philosphy at Helsinki University. He was a figure with > authority by just being present. But not comparable with Wittgenstein. - I > lost many opportunities to discussions with him on Wittgenstein. To my deep > regret later on. > > But Georg von Wright and Anscombe, who were left with the legacy of > Wittgenstein, that is to publish OR leave unpublished his writings, chose > not to publish everything. > > What was left out, were essential notes (in my judgement) in the philosphy > of mathematics these two decided that "the time" is not ready for bringing > out all. > > So, what we now have available has been deliberately cut down. The most > radical conclusions (on math) have been omitted. > > How come Wittgenstein's latest conclusions on mathematics was so important > to cut out? What could have been so dangerous? > > This is a question I wish to pose to list members. > > Especially to Jerry and John. > > Best, Kirsti > > > > > > > > Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 5.2.2017 22:26: > >> Peirce is said to be a superficial and less than apt theologian. Not >> one of the things he is cited for. I think he and Wittgenstein are >> peas in a pod right down to their common reliance on, and iconoclasm >> toward, the natural sciences. It was Wittgenstein who noted the >> difficulty of dealing with what I have for years called the realm of >> mystery and supposition.He called it nonsense in a positive way. And I >> agree with those who say his reason was to protect ethics and >> religion. >> >> As one with theological training who has gone far toward >> reconstructing a theology outside the camp, there being no antidote to >> banishment for career decisions such as fighting for reparations in >> the 60s and favoring Saul Alinsky, I think Peirce has made THE >> fundamental contribution needed not only for religion but for the >> world generally. That is triadic thinking understood as a means of >> making the unspeakable sayable and normative. >> >> I have had no access to circles within the Peirce community and have >> been excluded and skewered by some for whatever reason. But I do want >> to make this point about Peirce and Wittgenstein. Though neither man >> was a theologian, together they are the future of any universal and >> nonviolent and ethically advanced religious thinking. The simplest way >> to say this is to say that binary thinking in any form when applied >> to Wittgenstein's unsayable is anathema to progress while triadic >> thinking is the key to progress. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1] >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
