Assuming there are places we cannot reach.īut before continuing with what he said, a pause to look at who Wittgenstein was, which is just as fascinating as what he said, and what he didn’t say. All of that which many are babbling today, I have defined in my book by remaining silent about it.”Īlso in Wittgenstein’s own words, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Honest silence is the pinnacle of ethics. For the ethical is delimited from within, as it were, by my book and I’m convinced that strictly speaking it can ONLY be delimited in this way. And precisely this second part is the important one. “My work consists of two parts: the one which is here, and of everything I have not written. As Wittgenstein himself writes in a letter to Ludwig von Fricker:
It doesn’t refer to structures, which are also observed, that could deform the very observation of reality, but to the limits of observation in itself. This kind of “ethicality principle” that we find in the three celebrities is top notch. Finally, regardless of the tools used to try to answer them, all of their suspicions respond to the same will: ethics. It is not surprising that in the end, the work of the philosopher Wittgenstein could seem mathematical, with implications for theoretical physics, or that the uncertainty principles could resemble philosophical work (it is no surprise that three of the books published by Heisenberg were Philosophical Problems of Nuclear Science, Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics, or the very famous Physics and Philosophy), while any good theoretical physicist should take into account the limitations in their mathematics indicated by Gödel’s Uncertainty Principles. To answer this question and probe the nature of true suspicion, the 20th Century brought us at least three real masters of suspicion: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Kurt Gödel and Werner Heisenberg.Įach of them, in their respective fields of philosophy, mathematics and theoretical physics, aimed to analyze not only what factors affect, or could affect, the observation and representation of reality, but to see whether it is even possible to be capable of representing, even observing, reality exactly as it is. It is therefore worth considering a clear question: is it fair to talk about suspicion of the vision of reality if in order to do so, it is based on other concepts, prior to those that come precisely from observation? In addition, these three visions, in varying degrees and in different ways through distinct means and with disparate consequences, eventually produced different utopias, directly or indirectly.
LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN SERIES
Whether it comes from economic issues (Marx), weakness in a broader sense (Nietzsche) or from repression of the subconscious ( Freud), a series of phenomena produced a false concept of reality, and with it, of its meaning. This suspicion, although stemming from different assumptions, could more or less be summarized as a distortion of consciousness about reality.
According to Ricoeur, “Three masters, seemingly mutually exclusive, dominate the school of suspicion: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud.” In the year 1965, in his essay “Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation”, French philosopher Paul Ricoeur coined the expression “ school of suspicion” as a form of hermeneutics that was opposed to that of affirmation.
0 kommentar(er)
