For all of Wittgenstein’s initial claim to “solving the problems of philosophy,” it seems his unclarity of form and content is only leading to a reframing of further problems.

Thus far, I have nearly checked out into my own prejudices of mental acts & ontology.  Patience only lasts so long, and for philosophers, near infinite patience is required. Upon my personal lack, I often find regression to my own ideas when another speaks over and over and over, saying nothing which is helpful to clarify the described circumstance.

Particularly for Wittgenstein, like most philosophers, the mind-body problem exists more in terms of names & their referents. On some base level, most of us see no point behind attempting to understand the conditions required for our brain to know what another is talking about when they say “my car.” Somewhere along the way, in early childhood development, language happened upon us, and here we are involved and embodying it. Certainly various sociologists want to know if language is “caught” from parents, but sadly some post-Chomskian studies show an in-born affinity.

Anyways, Wittgenstein comes upon us and decides to descend into the nether-regions of our brain, and claim that words aren’t much of anything until a knowing, understanding subject comes along and picks them up. Personally, at this point I wonder how voluntary the mind is. The traditional example of “don’t think of a white elephant” is often used– and when I sit in Starbucks, I am disattentive to my own studies in lieu of the gibberish thrust upon me by the next seat over. Ahh the joy of public life.

Back to Wittgenstein. For all his introductory remarks of “propositions” and “facts” it seems he begins to back-track and almost psychologize (gack!) the whole of communicative life. “Oh wait, when I said propositions, I didn’t mean the words like you reasonably assumed I meant! Those are just the propositional-signs! The proposition is in your head!” And wordless thoughts, like the song melody you can’t get out of your head, are created in a pre-expressive land of personal, mental creativity. To explicate Wittgenstein’s position, I should advocate a picture:

Speaker:Mind->land-of-thoughts->speech-acts (expressions/propositional signs) … land-of-invisible, silent, unexpressed representations -> Mind:Listener.

All this is still nearly insane in terms of getting anyone any closer to understanding Mind. Sure “in our mind’s eye” there are lots of pictures, assumed reconstructions running idyllically parallel to the world, but there are hardly any required ontological status of thoughts. Wittgenstein explicitly states that thoughts aren’t simply facts, but pictures of facts. Thoughts, thereby have no representative sign to hide behind. In some real terms, the mind’s nonverbal creative ability mixed with “a picture is worth a thousand words” is how Wittgenstein gets to this “picture theory of sense.”

If I’ve entirely lost any & everyone by now, I simply mean that from a picture (even what we see) a high number of propositions could be expressed. And from these propositional-signs, another high number of pictures can be constructed silently, wordlessly in the mind.

Word Count: 501:

footnote: if confusion and anger show through, it’s more related to tonight’s inane night-class more than Wittgenstein. I do however consider the Wittgenstein discussions to be mildly repetitious. I suppose I’m just impatient, as noted above.

It seems that Wittgenstein’s Ontology can be approached from various “sides of the philosophical hill.” I could start explaining it in pure being-and-stuff terms: that the “stuff” of this world is sufficiently atomic. Atomic, here referring to “simple” indivisible, non-complex or non-compounded entities. Whoever knows whatever each atomic entity is is irrelevant.

Now, how Wittgenstein gets to atomism isn’t a matter of empiricism or particle accelerator-colliders. There’s a parallel world which he sees necessarily requiring metaphysical atomism: semantic atomism. Maybe I should back up a bit. There is another “hill” by which Wittgenstein approaches his atomic conclusion. Human language is a very flexible thing. It’s not like machine-code, where each and every operator and label is important to the point of system-crashing. Human language also isn’t like code, since it is filled with vagaries, nuance. What human language presents itself as is a weird mix of names, relations, actions and general fluff.

Names are significant entities, otherwise known as “terms.” They’re a handy connection between language and physical, empirical reality. They are usually as clear and present as a stop-sign is (and if they’re not, well, they can be made to be so by simple presentation of the ‘thing’ they represent). Names, as signs, are just like those silly metaphysical atomic entities — simple, and undecomposable (who knew that was an actual word!) in meaning. Sure, we could try and decompose “unicorn” into words (through descriptors), for instance “A unicorn is a white horse, with a single straight, pointy horn on it’s nose, like a narwhal.” But such a description (however accurate or precise) is hardly a decomposition.. it’s really just pointing me towards the possible idea or possible reality of a unicorn, but not in any real way pointing a unicorn out. Put another way, descriptions are really good filters and painters, but really bad labels or signs.

So that’s the majority of the tough-stuff. After the clarification of what atomism is, I really just see worlds parallel to our own, in logical space and/or in language-space. And speaking of logic, Wittgenstein views the relationship of these atomic entities as logically oriented. The world’s content is atomic, so the world’s form (like language’s form) can also be parallel, and like science tries to find out the precise nature of nature, the form of nature is spelled out in logic. I may have presented logic here as secondary, contingent or as “accidental”, but really, logic is the third “way” up the philosophical hill of Wittgenstein’s ontology — were you to start with logic, Wittgenstein would expect you to also end up with atomism.

Word count:  431.

Upon reading Wittgenstein’s own preface, I am hit with the question, “Just what are the problems of philosophy (which Wittgenstein sees and solves)?”

Ultimately, I find the analytic nature of this text to be much clearer than 18th century continental philosophy. Was ist Begriff? I fear reading the entire work of Hegel would be required to understand it. Wittgenstein however states clearly “Fact is..”, “Propositions are..”, “Objects are…” As much as I can handle vague and amorphous ideas while reading texts, I often feel I cannot speak, let alone level critique on such writings. If I am to write even remotely definitively about my knowledge of a text, I must have relatively determinate, morphous knowledge, lest I fill pages with nonsense. The trouble to analytic writings however, is the summary nature of them. Wittgenstein is effectively creating a logical dog-pile the size of the universe. Few minds are capable of keeping in memory all the labels and precise definitions he uses. Outlines & notes will prove useful.

As to Schroeder’s writings, I am at once thrilled and relieved to read his works (especially chapter 2) as a vorwort to the actual text. So very often I have been instructed by the instructor to dive into the text of philosophy, only to have absolutely no clue what is the basic assumptions, language, or final end of the text. Regarding such assumptions and approach, I did begin to notice some of what Schroeder later elucidated as the tension between logic and metaphysics in the Tractatus. That is to say, is logic all that is, or naive realism, upon which logic builds? To some degree it sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem.

Later, Schroeder explicates Frege’s Bedeutung and Sinn. Simple referentialism seems weak in matters of all the words which are not nouns. Yet words like “all”, “each”, and even “like” can be referencing a logical function which precisely defines the term. Yet Schroeder’s problems with referentialism seem to be one of description over and against definition. Referentialism deals well with the latter; horribly with the former.

Word Count: 344.

Mediate Transcendentalism: that’s my new title for the secular approach.

Let’s start the tale at the lowest level though, and tell it through the lives of most of us: the daily worker. I hated my job in accounting, mostly because it was rote, but my interest here is in the fact that we eight would subject ourselves to each other, the boss and the working conditions.  One could explain our behavior through all means and sorts of 17th or 18th century social logic with terms like “common good” or the like. And that is my point: the early modern approach to society was one of a larger-than-self to which the selfish individual sacrifices. This “larger-than-self” isn’t fully transcendent like a Neo-Platonic God, but rather still very immanent: we see everyday those for whom we are to be sacrificing. Despite this direct vision, modern economic secularism advocates indirect sacrifice.. “for the masses, for society, for the Ideal!” not “for you” or “for him.”

The trouble I see with secularism isn’t it’s half-way transcendentalism, as if it’s not good enough, or as if it’s a poor attempt at deity-replacement or something. Rather, my complaint for any transcendental way of life is that no one really wants to be indirectly loved. I especially don’t want to be “loved” because someone, something, or some ideal is telling them to love me.. that’s the late 20th century interest in “authenticity” (thank you very much Habermas). Fully immanent love/sacrifice is direct, personal and soul-filling (and perhaps soul-emptying!!). And despite how energy-taking it may be, it is at the same time never life-energy taking. A level of confidence must exist lest sacrifice be used as a tool for selfish ends.

k. that’s all I’ve got so far..

My RSS feed gave me this gem today:

I recommend taking a larger perspective than this overly-simple graphic displays. Note that it is without any credits to actual pyschological or sociological research, as well as being an example of the “slippery slope” logical fallacy .

Rather, the “real world” is filled with people who are managed into any one (not necessarily all!) of these positions by circumstances which themselves seem overly challenging, or have proven worthless. These can be seen as personal failures. Note also that self-confidence, cirumstances/environments of empowerment are NOT on this list, nor are they suggested to be on this list. Instead, Mr. Holmes presents the beginnings of a ‘blame-game’, a triage by which to score, judge and rate workers. Those who are already succeed will continue, those who fail will continue. Mr. Holmes offers no direct or clear recommendations or means of change. Such a false-dichotomizing info-graphic leads the viewer into negative feelings of self or worse, sets a keen eye to look out for and against the “fixed” folk. Enemy-creation is hardly the hallmark of civil society, yet it is the nature of Modernist thought.

This is an entirely sad “info”-graphic, placing all responsibility for change upon the individual, who likely is by now numb and blind to opportunity, having missed prior occasions for success. I fail to see how blaming the “victim” here solves any problems or moves anyone beyond self into sociable environments. Management means helping – something that was lost in the industrial revolution’s genocide of apprenticed trade-workers. People are moved by experience more than simple frameworks, however wonderful and cleanly presented they may appear.

Most of these statements I have made are likely familiar to sociologists; a field which is likely unfamiliar to much of the outstanding public. My reccomendation: Read Mark Schneider’s Theory Primer book.

Sure they don’t exist, but their role of theologian seems to be taken on in philosophy, especially the German Lutheran ones of the 1800′s.

While there were plenty of “actual” theologians after the Reformation, philosophers moved thought along in a distinct way. Grant their way was inaccessible to the average joe, and that void of practice was taken up by Wesley, and the other 1800′s preachers. This new arising piety along with some strange conclusions of the Philosopher-Theologians lead to the early 20th century backlash against philosophers & modern life & thought in general.

..well, at least, that’s what I woke up a few days ago thinking..

A Series of Questions:

A refresher: What are the 4 major areas of Philosophy?
* Metaphysics (with a subset in ontology)
* Epistemology
* Value-Theory: Ethics & Aesthetics

Of these, which “is” Christanity? Many would say in our time “ethics”. My parents generation certainly would. But doesn’t Christianity make claims regarding the nature of this world (as well as the next!)? Doesn’t it make claims as to what we can and do know? Certainly there are ethical statements as well. From a philosophic perspective, Christianity is, requires, and encompasses all areas of philosophy.

Take the 19th century philosopher Hegel. He was a believing Christian in his day. He made metaphysical claims as to “what was real.” His claims were so vast and ‘certain’ that they are and were a full *system* of thought. Those punk-kids of you who despise “organized religion” probably have more issues with this guy than with the Pope (ok, so maybe not, but close). Systematic thinking is good. It challenges us to make sure our ideas are *coherent*. Why that’s important I’ll hold off on. The trouble here is that no one today believes Hegel’s system of theology/Christianity is “true” or “what is”. Why? Because things change, and people realize the errors in others.

What I now propose is the 20th century Christianity produced another system of thought, though not one of metaphysics. Metaphysically, Christians started trusting science’s “If I see it, then it’s real” (naive realism/materialism) for their everyday, pragmatic view of the world. This foundation lead to a general belief that “The way things *are*, can not be changed, but the way you act can be.” Christians decided to trust science for their metaphysics, but they could not trust science for their guide into ethics, and rightly so, since it was only adding to the list of ethical questions with all its options.

This ethical entrance produced not just here-and-there spotty ethics, but a whole system of ethics amongst the more rational Christians. God, and/or the Bible could answer our questions, and so “Biblical” Christians sought to tease out all the ethics they could to serve out to the hungry masses, as well as unify the ethical system.

The question our new generation of Christians is now faced with: was the ethical system handed to us, taught to us every Sunday (often in place of theology), right? This skeptical stance will likely put the previous generation, who put their whole lives to understanding ethics, on edge! How can these kids question our logic!

The reflective process (which each generation undertakes) is often not one of reason, but one of affection. I do not deny that there are systematic, logical answers in ethics. What I deny is that objective ethics is Faith, not faith. Faith, as a System, is really just Enlightened Reason. There is trust, but trust in a logical system, not a person, and certainly not directly in a deity.

This is an age-old balance between objectivity and subjectivity. Where does truth lie? Many up front would say “In the Bible, in the creeds” or others “In reason”. I suppose I am claiming more like Kierkegaard: Truth is not in this physical world; I only trust that I have it.

Above all I believe that Christianity is about Jesus being Truth, whom we as individuals subjectively commune with through faith. To say that again: My daily actions are to be trusting Him. When I face an ethical dilemma, what am I to do? God has given me reason, history, His Word, friends and my wife. These are enough ‘priests’ already. We will figure out what to do, and do as we have decided. Our actions “in faith” are that of a stand-in: trust that we are enacting His will on this planet; trust that He would do the same; trust that I do not need another preist to keep me from directly communing with him in prayer and expression of concern.

But all the masses need direction! Without a system it will be mass-chaos! This is (by the way) the same logic which leads people to assume that anarchy=chaos. I am not opposed to organization, I am not opposed to communication. Nor am I opposed to structure. But Jesus has given us the structures we need: husband-and-wife, those with like-faith, rememberance of His death & resurrection. I believe we only *think* we need more. Otherwise, we become text-book, cookie-cutout people.

I accidentally spoke a worthwhile statement last week. While in the context of shot-gun God-talk, of which I rarely tolerate, my mind decided to construct an almost-argument starting with “Modernism is too much,” meaning, “Raising the pure objectivity to the level of pure and absolute authority, and/or all the knowledge and personal, intellectual and otherwise internal requirements created and piled up upon us over the last 100 highly rational and scientific years is more than we were built to handle.” 

Let’s start with the intellect: to achieve the height of intellectuality, you must learn all that history has recorded, and then dive deep into some small minutia of the matter. “Leading edge” is always exciting, but nevermore has it taken so many anti-social, inhumane years and years to get there. It is nearly impossible to maintain oneself across multiple personal responsibilities (read: be a ‘whole’ ‘normal’ person) and be a deep-deep researcher/academic. 

Even in areas of “faith and science” do we really know via low-level empiricism what it is we are doing or studying? (What is it that makes a human mind tend towards happiness or otherwise? Is it really *just* drugs?) To one, “God” is as contrived as “evolution” is to another. Both, by their intellectual merits alone are seemingly just overblown constructs of any given data. That is, Modernism has given us so many data points and connections, to know it enough to speak clearly about it is hardly easy. 

Yet human pride comes in and decides to decide and speak and re-create anyways, this found in no greater contemporary faux-ideology of “All religions are the same” simply repeat the past instead of learning from it.

Sadly, this is what I see when looking at the ascendency of the human race. We aren’t going forward so much as we are doing a new version of the same-old. What looks like four steps forward become only one. Again: if Modernism has given us too much data to handle, we won’t handle it; humanity will ignore it, and we’ll all be our own geniuses by our own standards. 

How hard is it to be original.

So what’s up with the latest buzz-word “emerging”? It’s starting to get annoying: First up today, I read a post about Samsung’s kid/teenager-”friendly” phone, which allowed such features as “fake call” and “SOS Call”. And how did they describe the usage of these features? “..users can be directly linked to their family members and friends in emergent situations and even easily escape from dangerous situations”. Ok, sure this is “emergent” as in “emergency”, as in “911″. I’m ok with that.

Exhibit “B” came down the pipes right after I read about the phone: Ray Kurzweil’s interview regarding AI and all the other fund machine-futurism ideas I tend to enjoy. He (of course) decided to use “emerging” in a more philosophical sense: “if we were to consider where consciousness comes from we would have to consider it an emerging property.” Really Ray? Emerging? Just like the number ’2′ emerges from putting 1 and 1 together? Whoa, that’s mysterious.. I don’t know how ’2′ just emerged!

And of course there’s always the “emergent”/”emerging” church issues. How inane is it to have dividing lines along the last few letters of a word?

Seriously, if ‘emergent’ is becoming a synonym for ‘immediate’, ‘unknown’, ‘novel’ or ‘indirect causation’, all terms lose their meaning. It’s like describing the very-well-known processes of electrical transistors not a ‘switches’ but as ‘dice’. There are better terms out there: supervenience, direct & indirect causation, necessary or essential, contingent or ‘accidental’..

The language of emerging (whether good or bad) puts stress on the object created and less on it’s contingencies. Read: Giving something the property of necessity-of-existence when it is wholly contingent. While I understand this to be an absolute reversal of Modernism’s interest in the necessary and non-contingent (and subsequent disinterest in all things contingent), surely there ought be a balance to this “OMG! Isn’t this SO GREAT?!” romanticism (or so claims this semi-modernist!)

So as for this blog-post ‘emerging’ from my brain, being contingent on my job not interrupting me, my own ability to focus, as well as my own thoughts being formed into this ‘whole’ which is a post, I guess it “emerges” just like an “emergent” (911) situation.. but honestly, what in life doesn’t emerge??

An interesting quote from French President Nicholas Sarkozy (from AFP):

..that many of the hundreds of French soldiers executed for desertion or mutiny during the war “had not dishonoured themselves, were not cowards, but had simply been pushed to the extreme limit.

Critique:

1. Modernism (as foreseen by Nietzsche and Marx) dehumanizes us into pawns to be maneuvered, not humans with boundaries to be built up and valued. Likewise, there was the expectation that human boundaries were much larger than they are presently considered to be. Furthermore, post-imperial thinking was enarmoured by modernism’s technology and love of orderly boundaries.
2. PostModernism now recognized those lowered boundaries/expectations on us, allowing us to be more ‘pansy’, but also to feel and enjoy and create art not war now that those boundaries are more accepted, and pride is less accepted.
3. Personal pride of being the hero and love for country is hardly ever greater than love for self-protection and those we trust (thank you Maslow). If it is, then such pride has likely taken over any genuine love and interest in people (nevermind that Christian citizenship is international).