Theism

I have been a bit stubborn not wanting to abandon theism, and some of my previous posts are ever so slightly coloured by this perspective. That might not be important, but anyway I now see that the concept of God as a "person" of some sort may have to be cleared out of my thinking. I do not think I can see any way of maintaining such a position. Once we envision the supreme principle in humanoid form, it is diminished, gaining the limitations and weaknesses of our own kind.

Another thing, related: If music is communication, of what does it speak?

Wittgenstein

I've been reading about Wittgenstein the last couple of days, and I must say someting about this right now. These texts about W that I have read are of a very superficial and introductory nature, but nonetheless I have come to a stunning and sudden realization. I have never read much about W before, because all that talk about language and what it can or cannot express seemed uninteresting to me, and this is seems allways to be what is focused on in texts about him. This is not unreasonable, of course, because the tractatus (which I haven't read, though I will) speaks mainly of this. The point, of course, is that this is not what it's about. All these learned men and women trying to give a simple account of W's philosophy, going on and on about language, are entirely missing the point. Here is a passage cut from Wikipedia's article about W. It illustrates my point accurately and clearly:

6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

This leads him to reassert the main point of the book:

7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Some have chosen to interpret this as deliberate irony, others as outright performative contradiction.

The last sentence is the important one here. It shows how completely W is misunderstood by interpreters if this is what is commonly said about the 7th parapraph. The text above states that this is the main point of the book, and then goes on to say that it is irony or deliberate contradiction. Why would the genius W write a book that has a piece of nonsensical itony or contradiction as its main point? It's ludicrous!

Obviously, it is these readers who fail to understand what W is trying to say here. I can not understand why, it is quite simple, really, and he tells us in plain language: The point of the book is not what is said in it, but what it leads us to. The arguments are meant as guides on the road towards understanding, or as W himself calls it: the ladder. The words themselves are not trying to describe the truth as W sees it, in fact they can not, and this is his point. The central philosophical truth is spiritual, or "mystical", as he calls it, and thus cannot be expressed by words. This does not make the words meaningless, however. Since the truth cannot be spoken of directly, the purpose of philosophy is to show the way towards an understanding that the individual must reach on is own.

This is marvellous! This is very much the same as I am trying to express in my own clumsy and inferior way on this blog! What a wonderful revelation! I will read the tractatus in the near future.

Corrections from an unfocused mind

After writing for some time, I easily loose focus on the concept I am trying to write about, and end up writing some nonsense like the last part of my post about spiritual truths. It was of course my point all along that moral truths in fact can be determined like mathematical truths. That single moral statements can be verified by the resonance it creates in the soul.
Examples of this might be the golden rule of Christ and the Buddha, which must seem to most observers to say something universally true about the nature of morals. But, unlike mathematical truths, ethical truths can not be backed up by physical evidence. Even though the concept 2 + 2 = 4 can not be directly pointed to in the physical world, it can easily be demonstrated with the use of physical objects.
An ethical truth can not be demonstrated in this manner, and this is why I classify ethical truths as subjective, rather than objective truths. The mathematical statement above can be proven to someone else by the use of physical objects such as rocks. In the case of the golden rule, the truth of the statement must be determined individually by each recipient. You can make the statement to another, but you must trust him or her to see its validity his or herself by reflection free of prejudice and preconceptions.
Actually, the expression subjective truth might be a bit of a misnomer, as the truth itself is actually objective or inter-personal. It is the proof that is subjective, not the fact.