mls@mhuxu.att.com (Michael L Siemon) (08/17/89)
Wittgenstein never dealt at length with topics of religion, though he clearly was much preoccupied with it throughout his life. He seems to have felt considerable attraction for the deepest *human* experience here, without ever having come to a satisfactory way of conceptualizing the *other* side. There are some interesting notes published in _Culture and Value_ culled from manuscript materials selected by G. H. von Wright. I'd like to excerpt a few of these, as observations from a non-Christian who has some idea what it is like, really, to be a Christian: --------------------------------------------------------------- "I read: 'No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.' And it is true: I cannot call him *Lord*; because that says nothing to me... I cannot utter the word 'Lord' with meaning. *Because I do not believe* that he will come to judge me; because *that* says nothing to me. And it could say something to me, only if I lived *completely* differently... So we have to content our- selves with wisdom and speculation. We are in a sort of hell where we can do nothing but dream, roofed in, as it were, and cut off from heaven. But if I am REALLY to be saved, -- what I need is *certainty* -- not wisdom, dreams or speculation -- and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what is needed by my *heart*, my *soul*, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that has to be saved, not my abstract mind. Perhaps we can say: Only *love* can believe the Resurrection. Or: It is *love* that believes the Resurrection. We might say: Redeeming love believes even in the Resurrection; holds fast even to the Resurrection. What combats doubt is, as it were, *redemption*... So what that means is: first you must be redeemed and hold on to your redemp- tion -- then you will see you are holding fast to this belief. So this can come about only if you no longer rest your weight on the earth but suspend yourself from heaven. Then *everything* will be different and it wll be `no wonder` if you can do things you cannot do now. (A man who is suspended looks the same as one who is standing, but the interplay of forces within him is never- theless quite different, so that he can act quite differently than can a standing man.)" "No one *can* speak the truth; if he has still not mastered himself. He *cannot* speak it; -- but not because he is not clever enough yet. The truth can be spoken only by someone who is already *at home* in it; not by someone who still lives in falsehood and reaches out from falsehood towards truth on just one occasion." "I believe that one of the things Christianity says is that sound doctrines are all useless. That you have to change your *life*. (Or the *direction* of your life.)" "'God has commanded it, therefore it must be possible to do it.' That means nothing. There is no 'therefore' about it. At most the two expressions might mean the *same*. In this context, 'He has commanded it' means roughly: He will punish anybody who does not do it. And nothing follows from that about what anybody can or cannot do. And *that* is what "predestination" means. But that doesn't mean that it's right to say: 'He punishes you even though you *cannot* do otherwise.' -- Perhaps, though, one might say: in this case punishment is inflicted in circumstances where it would be impermissible for a human being to inflict it. And then the whole concept of 'punishment' changes. For now you can no longer use the old illustrations, or else you have to apply them quite differently." "Kierkegaard writes: if Christianity were so easy and cosy, why should God in his scriptures have set heaven and earth in motion and threatened *eternal* punishments? -- Question: But in that case why is this scripture so unclear? If we want to warn some- one of a terrible danger, do we go about it by telling him a riddle whose solution will be the warning? -- But who is to say that the scripture really is unclear? Isn't it possible that it was esssential in this case to 'tell a riddle'? And that, on the other hand, giving a more direct warning would necessarily have had the *wrong* effect? God has *four* people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with incon- sistencies -- but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely historically plausible *just so that* this should not be taken a the essential, decisive thing? So that the *letter* should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the *spirit* may receive its due. I.e. what you are supposed to see cannot be communicated even by the best and most accurate historian; and *therefore* a mediocre account suffices, is even to be preferred. For that too can tell you what you are supposed to be told. The Spirit puts what is essential, essential for your life, into these words. The point is precisely that you are only SUPPOSED to see clearly what appears clearly even in *this* representation. (I am not sure how far all this is exactly in the spirit of Kierkegaard.)" "The Christian faith -- as I see it -- is a refuge in this highest torment. Anyone in such torment who has the gift of opening his heart, rather than contracting it, accepts the means of salvation in his heart. Someone who in this way penitently opens his heart to God in confession lays it open for others too. In doing this he loses the dignity that goes with his personal prestige and becomes like a child. That means without official position, dignity or disparity from others. One can bare oneself before others only out of a particular kind of love. A love that acknowledges, as it were, that we are all wicked children." -- Michael L. Siemon In philosophy the winner of the race cucard!dasys1!mls is the one who can run most slowly. att!sfbat!mls Or: the one who gets there last. standard disclaimer -- Ludwig Wittgenstein