A Mendacious Triangular Trade (Part V)
Perhaps I have mentioned him before, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Most folks know of him from one famous saying, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." In more "informed" circles, he is better known for having mentioned (once) that if his philosophy is true, then it cannot be true, his way of saying he should have remained silent from birth. If he had been more atuned to the vernacular, he might have phrased the whole of his philosophy in one question: "What the fuck do I know that's so true I have to tell about it?"
And I might point out to him (by way of an answer) that his question, by itself, considered as information, communicated more than Hegel did in two-million words of poorly written German. Wittgenstein's question cannot have been asked from any position other than from "the beyond," that place God would stand if he needed one. Ludwig was saying -- not too clearly in his published work -- that some subject matter is unreachable by human minds. We can explain, maybe, how a gasoline engine works, but we cannot explain where came the power that permits the mind to explain how gasoline engines work. This fact (if it is a fact -- more later -- tomorrow as it turns out) suggests that those people who try to explain the inexplicable are speaking whereof they do not know. They're blowing smoke up the ass of the human race.
The Hitlers, Hegels, and Wolfowitzes of the world may sound like they actually know something. They speak with authority. But unless their explanations make the same sort of appeal to common sense as the explanations of gasoline engines make, they're wandering into places where silence would have been better.
We must not lose sight of the fact, however, that some explanations of gasoline engines are wrong, and some others dead wrong. Hitler's explanation of why the German people were superior held an appeal to a certain sort of common sense. Beethoven's music and Kant's philosophy -- products of the German culture -- could be treated as indicators of superiority. So when Der Fuhrer extended the "obvious" superiority of the German people to an equally "obvious" right of the Germans to the goods and territories of other people, his "logic" made all the sense in the world. Perhaps we do not "know" whereof we speak when we say that Hitler was dead wrong, but if we fail to address the question, if we remain silent, we shall have abandoned the most fundamental quality of what we mean when we say we are human.
Yesterday, I read a news report of a certain PhD down in Texas who, being concerned with the growing population of the world, recommended the ebola virus as a convenient means for wiping out 90% of the world's people. At first, I thought the article was a spoof. The audience of about 300 Texas scientists was reported to have given this particular insane man a standing ovation. But it wasn't a spoof. The man is real. He was serious. And so far as I can tell, no one has filed charges.
[Note: I have been informed by a more-or-less reliable source that the PhD may have been quoted out of context. The original article was actually a second hand report, its writer having not himself been present at the conference. The standing ovation delivered at the end of the speech could thus be understood as having been unrelated to the reported recommendation that 90% of the human population be destroyed. It would also explain why no charges have been filed against the professor. This note and the bracketed, italicized word next below were added 4/5/06.]
Wittgenstein would [nevertheless] not have recommended silence.
We know for sure that there is a finite limit to the population that can be supported by the resources of the planet, AND we know that murder is not the answer. That doesn't mean that we know what the answer is, only that we know what it is not. Socrates himself had a Daemon that did the same sort of thing for him, told him when he was going wrong, but never said anything that would lead him in the right direction. I recall that Wittgenstein once referred to something similar, but treated the facts of physical science as his Daemons, facts that, when we bump up against them, trying to violate them, push us away, not telling us the way to go, but declaring as best they can, "This ain't it."
Finally, taking Wittgenstein's truth to its ultimate effect -- and skipping the details -- we're left with the fact that whatever we understand the world to be, whatever we believe to be the right thing to do, whatever we actually do -- the source of that knowing is nowhere but here, I mean right here, in the hearts and minds of each of us. We may listen to people who speak with authority, but the act of believing them is ours, not theirs. Even if there actually is a voice from on high that speaks to us in clear words, it's still ourselves, and not the voice itself that gives it meaning in the world. We make God real.
And that is a terrible responsibility for which we are seriously unprepared.
[I realize this has been a sidetrack from "the mendacious triangle trade," but it seemed like a meander worth taking.]
To be continued.
And I might point out to him (by way of an answer) that his question, by itself, considered as information, communicated more than Hegel did in two-million words of poorly written German. Wittgenstein's question cannot have been asked from any position other than from "the beyond," that place God would stand if he needed one. Ludwig was saying -- not too clearly in his published work -- that some subject matter is unreachable by human minds. We can explain, maybe, how a gasoline engine works, but we cannot explain where came the power that permits the mind to explain how gasoline engines work. This fact (if it is a fact -- more later -- tomorrow as it turns out) suggests that those people who try to explain the inexplicable are speaking whereof they do not know. They're blowing smoke up the ass of the human race.
The Hitlers, Hegels, and Wolfowitzes of the world may sound like they actually know something. They speak with authority. But unless their explanations make the same sort of appeal to common sense as the explanations of gasoline engines make, they're wandering into places where silence would have been better.
We must not lose sight of the fact, however, that some explanations of gasoline engines are wrong, and some others dead wrong. Hitler's explanation of why the German people were superior held an appeal to a certain sort of common sense. Beethoven's music and Kant's philosophy -- products of the German culture -- could be treated as indicators of superiority. So when Der Fuhrer extended the "obvious" superiority of the German people to an equally "obvious" right of the Germans to the goods and territories of other people, his "logic" made all the sense in the world. Perhaps we do not "know" whereof we speak when we say that Hitler was dead wrong, but if we fail to address the question, if we remain silent, we shall have abandoned the most fundamental quality of what we mean when we say we are human.
Yesterday, I read a news report of a certain PhD down in Texas who, being concerned with the growing population of the world, recommended the ebola virus as a convenient means for wiping out 90% of the world's people. At first, I thought the article was a spoof. The audience of about 300 Texas scientists was reported to have given this particular insane man a standing ovation. But it wasn't a spoof. The man is real. He was serious. And so far as I can tell, no one has filed charges.
[Note: I have been informed by a more-or-less reliable source that the PhD may have been quoted out of context. The original article was actually a second hand report, its writer having not himself been present at the conference. The standing ovation delivered at the end of the speech could thus be understood as having been unrelated to the reported recommendation that 90% of the human population be destroyed. It would also explain why no charges have been filed against the professor. This note and the bracketed, italicized word next below were added 4/5/06.]
Wittgenstein would [nevertheless] not have recommended silence.
We know for sure that there is a finite limit to the population that can be supported by the resources of the planet, AND we know that murder is not the answer. That doesn't mean that we know what the answer is, only that we know what it is not. Socrates himself had a Daemon that did the same sort of thing for him, told him when he was going wrong, but never said anything that would lead him in the right direction. I recall that Wittgenstein once referred to something similar, but treated the facts of physical science as his Daemons, facts that, when we bump up against them, trying to violate them, push us away, not telling us the way to go, but declaring as best they can, "This ain't it."
Finally, taking Wittgenstein's truth to its ultimate effect -- and skipping the details -- we're left with the fact that whatever we understand the world to be, whatever we believe to be the right thing to do, whatever we actually do -- the source of that knowing is nowhere but here, I mean right here, in the hearts and minds of each of us. We may listen to people who speak with authority, but the act of believing them is ours, not theirs. Even if there actually is a voice from on high that speaks to us in clear words, it's still ourselves, and not the voice itself that gives it meaning in the world. We make God real.
And that is a terrible responsibility for which we are seriously unprepared.
[I realize this has been a sidetrack from "the mendacious triangle trade," but it seemed like a meander worth taking.]
To be continued.
posted by Benedict S. at 12:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home