I really enjoyed reading Wittgenstein because his work is unlike any others that we have read this semester. The way that he numbered the points that he was making, much like a slide show, made it very easy to follow. I also find it hard to believe that if his work was to widely followed in the 1920s that he only published one book in his life time. But then again, it took a few years for his beliefs to catch on, the earlier ones, and the later ones are finally catching on today.
What I did like about his work is that it is so different, not only the set up, but what he is saying. Wittgenstein talks a lot about the world, how things in the world are true and how language is the only limits of the world. When I was reading his work, it made me think about Emerson--mostly because of the radical differences between the two. Where Wittgenstein states: “How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.” (pg. 148). This differs from Emerson so much because of his beliefs on the relationship between man, nature and spirit (nature being something Wittgenstein has not touched upon yet and probably won’t because we should know it is a truth because it is in the world).
Lastly, a quote that caught my eye was: “Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death.” (pg.148). This quote caught my attention because it, also, reminded me of our first class discussion about the ordinariness about death. I don’t believe that this quote is making death extraordinary, in fact I believe that it is reminding us that death is a simple and ordinary part of life, and to live life not worrying about death. This idea instantly reminded me of our class discussion of the ordinariness of death , but how experiencing the loss of someone close makes it extraordinary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wrote my post before reading yours, and I like that they are nearly opposite in their stance toward his form. I think the difference here is that you found yourself "reading" Wittgenstein, while nothing in my experience felt quite like "reading" to me. I am jealous.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, disagree with one point you make. You say, "in fact I believe that it is reminding us that death is a simple and ordinary part of life," regarding 6.4311-2. He, in fact, says "Death is not an event in life," which I take to mean that a living creature is completely unequipped to imagine (or picture) death, and thus death lies outside the limits of the world. It has nothing to do with life. Does this mean we can't talk about it? I think that's what Wittgenstein would say. I disagree. Or, does he mean the discussion of death has no place in philosophy?
I think Devin is referring to the fact that death is ordinary because it is inevitable; it happens to every living creature, and it is simply something that is out of our control. However, I also agree with you, Noelle, in that death is something we cannot fully comprehend because it is simply inaccessible to us to understand since if we are living, we have not experienced death. This inaccessibility, though, does not mean that we can't talk about it, I don't think. Just because we haven't experienced death firsthand, we have probably experienced what it is like to lose someone to death. Many are also grounded in beliefs of what death brings (i.e. the debate of Heaven), and so I think, in a way, we are equipped to talk about death, though we cannot talk about it as if we really know. Such discussion of death can be considered philosophy, can it not?
DeleteWell, I would argue that there is no way to experience death in any way other than firsthand. Mourning is fully grounded in the living, and (I would argue) has almost nothing to do with death, itself. Losing something is an act that only a living creature can experience.
DeleteAnd I certainly think we can talk about it! But Wittgenstein's final proposition claims we can't. Since we can't even imagine the state of being dead, I think Wittenstein would argue that we cannot talk about it; we can try, but our language will never come close, and we will derive nothing valuable from it.
I agree that we simply cannot know death without experiencing it firsthand. I see your point about mourning, and looking back, it really doesn't bring us any closer to understanding death I guess. It may actually bring us farther away since it is an act of living.
DeleteI think it's really interesting that we think we can talk about it, but technically we can't/shouldn't since we don't truly know. Wittgenstein's contradictions are pretty fascinating!