Hello, --- In [email protected], "Bill Smart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday, December 09, 2005 8:41 AM tszymans30 wrote: > >Actually, Wittgenstein wanted to draw a line between what is possible > >to say and what is impossible to say. > This is very compatible with a zen perspective on the limitations of verbal > communication.
I agree. He just wanted to show what can be solved using philosophy and what cannot be solved using philosophy. He wrote:"my language is my universe" - but my universe is not the Universe. He also wrote:"whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". But it doesn't mean there is nothing else to discover. We just have to use other "tools". Philosophy should be limited to analysis of language. > >He said [his?] philosophy made problems > >disappear because his aim was to show that a large majority of classic > >philosophical problems are "seeming" problems. He wanted to proove > >this thesis and make the problems disappear. He wanted to provide > >methods for examining sentences if they are philosophically solvable > >or not. > This is might be compatible with zen. Although I don't really know what is > meant by 'seeming problems', I assume that means they only 'seem' to be > problems because of the limitations of the language used to describe or > explain them. > In this respect LW might have used 'seeming' in somewhat the > same sense as zen language uses 'illusory'. What do you think? "Seeming problems" are problems formulated without proper understanding of language. "Seeming problems" are in fact pseudo- problems that arose from philosopher's misuse of language. Wittgenstein's new philosophical methodology was to continually remind the philosopher of the facts of linguistic usage that they had forgotten in their search for abstract "truths". It would then become obvious that the great questions posed by philosophers had arisen because they presupposed a mistaken view of language and its relation to reality. So, he wanted to save people from living in the world of illussions. Sakjamuni also didn't have good opinion about philosophy. The difference between him and Wittgenstein is Sakjamuni found another way of discovering the truth. > >He didn't meant there were nothing apart of what we can > >describe with our language. He wanted to clearly point that what is > >impossible to describe with language it can be solved with words. I am very sorry. I wrote "it can be soved with words" instead of "it cannot be solved with words" and it caused a misunderstanding. > I didn't fully understand this thought the way you have phrased it. Zen > teaches there are definitely things that cannot be described by language, > and in fact that there are things that cannot be comprehended by (are > incompatible with) thought itself. It is taught that the very act of > thinking introduces a subject/object perspective thereby prohibiting (or at > least inhibiting) a direct experience of reality. I think of it as > analogous to the scientific axiom regarding Schrödinger's Cat. Put simply: > the very act of observing an experiment changes (and in some cases in can be > said to CAUSE or PERCIPITATE) the results. > Is this anywhere in the same ballpark as Herr Wittgenstein? Well, TO MEASURE (OBSERVE) is always TO INTERACT but I don't think it has something in common with Wittgenstein. Kind regards, Tomek ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
