AtD, naming

[Page]

A significant motivation for Wittgenstein was to eliminate the metaphysical, like Kant's noumena, from philosophy. He certainly was influenced by Kant--even more so in his Philosophical Investigations--but LW is a legitimate heir of Hume's empiricism. As were all the Logical Positivists, particularly the Vienna Circle. The VC was extreme in its empirical bent.

The test of meaning and truth was the Verification Principle. The meaning of a proposition was how it was verified. Only propositions that met the test of verification by experience--i.e. only propsitions of natural science--could be true. Other propositions are nonsense. Note that, as in the Tractatus, the propsitions are nonsense, not false. My quibble with Mark is that the propositions are not passed over in "a scientifically philosophical way of understanding." LW wanted to dispense with philosophy altogether--see sections 6.53 and 6.54 of the Tractatus--so the propositions Mark is writing of are passed over because of the scientific way of understanding.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Kohut 
  To: David Morris ; Bryan Snyder 
  Cc: Page ; Ian Livingston ; pynchon-l at waste.org 
  Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:05 AM
  Subject: Re: AtD, naming


  Page can defend himself, and I am not speaking for him.
  However, my understanding of Wittgenstein's meaning is this:

  When he spoke of 'what could be said" here, he meant in some logical, scientific-like way,
  going back to Kant (and others).   

  He meant, say most, I think, that what can not be said "logically" must be passed over
  in a scientifically philosophical way of understanding. 

   He cleared the way (in his mind and others) for METAPHOR, poetry, art and, some say, a possible type of religious mysticism. All of the 'scientific-like' statements---let's call them, simplictically, 'facts', are few, so all of the stuff passed over in "silence" is what we might
  endlessly 'talk'--thru poetry, art, unstupid theological words................(and more)



  David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
    I think there's a big difference between the statement by Bryan and
    that by Page, and I think Bryan's is more correct. It's not that
    something can't be SAID, it's just that nothing can be adequately
    definitive. We are left with approximations, metaphors, symbolisms,
    all of which have aspects of the thing which is unspeakable, but which
    are important and need to be said.

    David Morris

    On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Bryan Snyder wrote:
    >
    > Holy Center is ALWAYS APPROACHING... But never reached...

    > On 5/2/08 7:18 PM, "Page" wrote:
    > 7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
    > So, to my mind, there is something very important about the distinction between what can be named and what cannot. It is the difference between what can be said and what cannot be said.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1416 - Release Date: 05/05/2008 5:11 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20080507/4aa79845/attachment-0001.html>