Originally posted by vistesdI'll take my leave here, but one last interesting point of comparison; because the later Wittgenstein's project was only to describe and illustrate how our actual language worked, and to give "therapy" to the "grammatically confused" who wanted to ask nonsensical questions, he wrote in a kind of dialogue. In Philosophical Investigations, for instance, you have at least two voices (I actually contend there are three...) - Wittgenstein and an interlocutor. The interlocutor says all those things we are tempted to say; Wittgenstein keeps bringing him back to our actual use of language. It seems odd, but really he could have written no other way to achieve his purpose.
I still think that language can be used as an indirect “pointer” toward the nonverbal experience—albeit perhaps an inefficient one. That is why the Zen masters often resort to shouts and shoves and slaps, etc.—“pure utterance,” maybe? But, while they also say that expressions of “it” (the suchness of experience) are not “it,” they nevertheless condescend t ...[text shortened]... ak
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!
I think this is what he had in mind when he wrote "philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry" (published in Culture and Value, Wittgenstein's collected personal notebook/diary remarks, which everyone should read regardless of their interest in his philosophy).
Originally posted by dottewellNietszche was of a similar bent. How dare you encourage me to run up my Amazon account.
I think this is what he had in mind when he wrote "philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry" (published in Culture and Value, Wittgenstein's collected notebooks, which everyone should read regardless of their interest in his philosophy).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's true. There are some surprising similarities between Neitszche's "philosophising with a hammer" and Wittgenstein's "therapy".
Nietszche was of a similar bent. How dare you encourage me to run up my Amazon account.
Go on, buy it. You know you want to.
Originally posted by dottewellAn amusing congeries of visual associations has been set up between the poles of "hammer philosophy" and "therapy".
It's true. There are some surprising similarities between Neitszche's "philosophising with a hammer" and Wittgenstein's "therapy".
Go on, buy it. You know you want to.
Can't you scan the individual pages and email them to me? I know you want to too.
Originally posted by David CIf one were to derive an analogous code for "Fornicate Imaginatively", what would it be?
White supremacists have been using 88 as a code for Heil Hitler. H being the 8th letter of the alphabet. Although, as Dottie pointed out, if he's 17 he was born in 1988. An unfortunate coincidence.
I couldn't make this up if I tried, really.
http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_88.asp
Originally posted by caissad4Look, what do you *mean* when you say truth is "mere perspective"? Your assertions are tinged with a mystical vagueness that frustrates.
No, they are either true or false.
Our limited perspective means we are just making a best guess.
Another way to look at it: Mere perspective as opposed to *what* exactly?
Perhaps, in the interests of clarity, you might indicate which of the following you believe:
A: There IS a way the universe is (the truth) independently of how it is observed, and we CAN know its essence.
B: There IS a way the universe is (the truth) independently of how it is observed, but we CAN'T know its essence.
B: There is NO way the universe is (the truth) independently of how it is observed, so we NEITHER can NOR can't know its essence, because it isn't there to know.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeSorry for the frustration but all existence is a perspective. For us, a humen perspective.
Look, what do you *mean* when you say truth is "mere perspective"? Your assertions are tinged with a mystical vagueness that frustrates.
Another way to look at it: Mere perspective as opposed to *what* exactly?
Perhaps, in the interests of clarity, you might indicate which of the following you believe:
A: There IS a way the universe is (the tr ...[text shortened]... is observed, so we NEITHER can NOR can't know its essence, because it isn't there to know.
Perspective is somewhere between Totality and non-existence (both ubdefinable_)
D: There IS a way the Universe is and we are only making a best guess.
So, make your best guess and always remember that in the end we may all be wrong.
It is about the journey, not the destination.
Apologies again if I created any frustration.
(1) What is real? What is truth?
They are the same. Reality is Truth.
(2) Can truth about reality be known?
Most certainly. To know the truth about Reality -- or Truth itself -- is to be enlightened. To be enlightened is to free of all delusion.
(3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against?
The best "absolute standard" are the teachings of fully awakened spiritual masters. There not many of these at present, and only a smattering through history. One needs to search for them, but they are there, and their words are still available, by and large.
If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard?
Fully enlightened ones establish the standard, by virtue of their wisdom. The deeper one goes into this matter, the more one finds that this One Truth is shared by these enlightened masters, although at times their descriptions vary slightly. But clearly they are all pointing at the same thing.
Or has it already been established?
It has been established for a long time, at least for 2,500 years, since the Buddha taught (he being one of the fully realized masters of history).
(4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we are not sure about the first 3 questions, and why?
Belief itself is kind of useless. Far better is to investigate the matter, with clarity of thought, hunger to know the truth, and willingness to study the great masters of history. Trust your own experience first and foremost. And cultivate a single minded desire to know the Truth.
Good luck. 🙂
Originally posted by caissad4Okay, that's a bit clearer. Thanks.
Sorry for the frustration but all existence is a perspective. For us, a humen perspective.
Perspective is somewhere between Totality and non-existence (both ubdefinable_)
D: There IS a way the Universe is and we are only making a best guess.
So, make your best guess and always remember that in the end we may all be wrong.
It is about the journey, not the destination.
Apologies again if I created any frustration.