One of the most important points of convergence with Wittgenstein and
Peirce I find in the note by Wittgenstein when starting his lectures on
Mathematics. He opened his lectures by stating: I will not say anything
anyone will disagree with. If someone does, I will say something else.
(not a quote, mind you).
CSP, for his part, stated: Do not pretend to doubt anything you do not
doubt in your heart.
This was the core of his critique against Descartes, and his "method".
Along with this a comment to a silly note on empirism and the senses. On
which I do not wish to converse any more than this note.
Empereia simply means experience. Something reached by trying something
out in practice. Observing systematically. In the times of Aristotle is
was taken for granted that there are six senses, the five special senses
AND (in the later Latin form) the common sense. Which was generally
agreed to reside and to be felt in the heart.
So there was a general agreement that the mind has a deep connection
with heart, not just with the brain. As is commonly presumed in our
ages.
No pictures or movies of electrical activities of brains can prove that
human mind needs no body.
But the ancients also took for granted that there is a soul. And that
souls are real. And that various souls have a unique quality. - Just as
do fingerprints. Which is a fact nowadays easy to concur with. - Why not
the unique quality of souls?
Kirsti
Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 11.2.2017 17:58:
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 [1]
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:32 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> 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] [1]
Links:
------
[1] http://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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
