[Stealth3si]

Has anyone read Ludwig Wittgenstein's most influential philosophical work of the twentieth century about, as I understand it to be, absolute truth. He tried to decipher the ol' time enigma: 'Can we know the truth?' by using mathematical logic to come to the conclusion that there is no such truth outside of mathematics, perhaps an immutable language used as a means to obtain certainty? Like how all the great thinkers throughout history have sought a single certainty, something which no one can refute, like "two and two make four?" Anyway, continuing on with his conclusions, there is no way of finding a single absolute truth, an irrefutable argument which might help answer the questions of mankind. Philosophy, therefore, is dead. Because "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent."

I have a couple of questions if anyone here can answer for me:

1.) Should it matter to a Christian philosopher whether he is holding temporal or theistic presuppositions?

2.) Is he absolutely sure about his conclusions? (Careful now.)

Oh my, I just had a deja vu writing this post.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Has anyone read Ludwig Wittgenstein's most influential philosophical work of the twentieth century about, as I understand it to be, absolute truth.

We talked a bit about it in my Hume-Russell-Quine class, Frege seminar, Phil Lang class, and I think one more. I studied under somebody who actually met him (the guy also met Heidegger -- very interesting), and did a lot of writing on Wittgenstein. But they didn't get the Wittgenstein seminar (taught by the resident Wittgenstein-obsesser) together until I graduated, so I unfortunately only know about it indirectly. But I can say this:

1. Probably the single most badass philosophical move ever. After writing the book he declared he had solved all the problems of philosophy and retired. Hahahahahahahahaha.

2. He later figured out that he was completely wrong and took a very new direction. I happen to really like that new direction (the so-called "Later Wittgenstein"). Later philosophers (esp. Quine) smacked around the school that built on his earlier work so much that I can't exactly disagree with his decision to change direction.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

1.) Should it matter to a Christian philosopher whether he is holding temporal or theistic presuppositions?

Temporal? Well, to answer, of course the person you're dealing with matters. (Nietzsche was prescient here.) Philosophy is not merely some abstract math-game (a view that was, unfortunately, often underwritten by what the early Wittgenstein wrote) but a dialogue between people.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

2.) Is he absolutely sure about his conclusions? (Careful now.)

Haha, no, he certainly wasn't, at least not later on.

To explain a bit more: There are multiple interpretations of the Tractatus, and despite being short it's a very complex book, but they at least tend to converge on the direction that the analytic tradition has taken: Find a logically perfect abstract language, and by using it you'll solve all the problems of philosophy. Everything that we can talk about will be uncontradictorily articulatable, and everything else will just not be spoken of. (Hence the later logical positivists' claims that metaphysical, ethical, and religious statements are meaningless.) So he's dealing with a certain conception of what language is and should be and what the relationship between language and the world is and should be.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I graduated

I once knew an Asst. Pastor/philosopher/theologian back in my home church. Congratulations! Where? BTW, did you update your profile?

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Probably the single most badass philosophical move ever. After writing the book he declared he had solved all the problems of philosophy and retired. Hahahahahahahahaha.

Haha. Wow. Talk about early retirement.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Later Wittgenstein

What new direction would that be?

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Later philosophers (esp. Quine) smacked around the school that built on his earlier work so much

So they helped reformed what they knew of the former to the new philosophy.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Haha, no, he certainly wasn't, at least not later on.

To explain a bit more: There are multiple interpretations of the Tractatus, and despite being short it's a very complex book, but they at least tend to converge on the direction that the analytic tradition has taken: Find a logically perfect abstract language, and by using it you'll solve all the problems of philosophy. Everything that we can talk about will be uncontradictorily articulatable, and everything else will just not be spoken of. (Hence the later logical positivists' claims that metaphysical, ethical, and religious statements are meaningless.) So he's dealing with a certain conception of what language is and should be and what the relationship between language and the world is and should be.

OK. So basically one looks at the world with a different lens, linguistically?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

I once knew an Asst. Pastor/philosopher/theologian back in my home church. Congratulations! Where? BTW, did you update your profile?

I graduated several years ago, and don't think my profile says that I'm a student. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

What new direction would that be?

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this in a while; I've been out of state and studying for a licensing exam with work.

Wittgenstein

Also, a couple of recommendations:
1. HO Mounce wrote an Introduction to the Tractatus that's pretty good.
2. The "Introducing Wittgenstein" book is decent (link).