terça-feira, 13 de março de 2012

Contemporary Philosophy, 5th session, March the 13th (Tomaz Fidalgo))

5th class Phil. Contemporary (12/03/2012)


Language games: hot to realize the leap (Sprung) from a formal understanding of some meaning into its applying in a situation. Understanding means getting in the situation. For instance, the leap from the understanding of an order and its executing it. Or waiting for an event and its fulfillment or deception.


In the Tractatuts the word “anticipation” (Vorwegnahme, Antizipation) never occurs. LW speaks rather of a future purpose. Mostly he speaks of anticipation as the condition of a possibility becoming truly real. The possibility lies in the horizon defined by the principle of identity and the principle of non contradiction. Tautology is true without conditions. Contradiction is never true under any conditions.

A declarative statement presupposes always a questioning. It is, therefore, understood as an answer to a questioning. Any sentence can never make sense as an isolated statement.
-5.62, 5.64 – One becomes aware of anticipation in solipsism: “the limits of my language, that the world is my world, are the limits of my language”. As solus ipse, I’m always in conversation and speaking with me about anything, even about my self. As an ipse, I’m always looking forward… to myself in a temporal dynamic where what will become of me is at stake.
- the condition of possibility of my understanding of my depends upon my struggling to come into grips of the language in which my own life becomes expressed in terms of my own language. The event of reality is not extrinsic to the language. Instead, the world is my world through the language of my life. Being concerned with language is being concerned with my life and they life lives the world.
Even the objectification of the world is supported and rooted in my understanding of me as solus ipse. A Worldwide access is my assumption: I am a point of view and do not have access to the world unless through my getting the world under perspective.
When I say "the world", I am using a language that can be understood by all. But the content of what I am saying is unrecoverable by any person. Each person has her own world. The “Sinn” “world” is always different from the meaning (“Bedeutung”) “world”!
No one else sees what I'm targeting when I say "my room", because no one else notices the peculiar atmosphere I live in. If I seek the sense (Sinn) and not the meaning (Bedeutung), I realize that this is mine and can not be understood outside of my reach. On the other hand, I have what we all mean by the “world” is a formalized content. The objective real world we all live in is nothing but the one overall connotation. Expressions like “my mother” are not subject to referral, because the their sense is behind or beyond denotation.

The understanding of “life”, “world”, “me” is always mine. One common objective real world even if denoted and referred to as one and the same is always spoken of through me. Life determines our moving in our world. Solipsism is the limit of reality because everything I mean can never be meant outside of my view point. Even when I imagine other points of view and try to get in another man’s shoes, it is me there looking from other perspective, through the eyes of somebody else but with my own eyes.

On the other hand, logic and mathematics do try to neutralize the prospect. Their content can be interpreted as being thought of by nobody and gotten through a view from nowhere. But is this really an eradication of a point of view?

Solipsism means that I am always in tension with me. Whatever are the contents I am dealing with, they are always contents to me. I can anticipate the inability to leave me, escape from me. Solipsism is the absolute nature of my own perspective: the globalization of me relative perspective. The logical formal approach to the stylized language of mathematics does neutralize the notion of perspective, thereby nullifying the differences between all perspectives. We get to the a common denominator. On the other hand we do away with the possibility of making any sense of the world. The world as content of geometrical thinking is simply uninhabitable.

Solipsism corresponds to the peculiar unfolding of oneself towards the world. Only when the denotation becomes connotation can I speak of common world I share with others. We do way with our perspective, for the object is univocal meant. The synchronized coordination and coexistence of every possible person with the world, allows the substitution of any person by any other. Is this however the neutralization of the solus ipse? Can I mean the way I am having in view only objective real or ideal contents? Can I become an objective real or ideal identity? How we relate to the reality I am?

Solipsism corresponds to the way "the world" exists to me. It means the shaping relationship with this world I got to be. But can I really get access to my life unfolding itself to me as I get along in life? With what kind of language can I describe the world I am?

In the Tractatus, this problem is raised in its extreme radicalization. The subjective atrophy leads to a hypertrophy of the world as an objective identity referred to without any connotation.

What has this to do with the anticipation? “The future events cannot be predicted from the present ones: the causal link is no more than superstition”. What is the quality of time that allows one to extrapolate from time to eternity? Are the contents of mathematics and the laws of logic outside time? Aren’t they rather timeless and therefore existing in relation with time? The analytical determination in logic doesn't do away with time. It rather allows our understanding of the intrinsic connection in logic as timeless but not without reference to time. There is a link to the future, for logical and mathematical content do not admit variation. The logical and mathematical formulation crystallize the moment of understanding (in einem Schlag) for a everlasting future.

5.1362 - Liberty consists in the fact that the future cannot be determined by this, the impossibility of logical deduction of the temporal form of the future from the temporal form of the present. The relation between present and future time is always synthetic, not analytical. Only apparently the logical content of say the hypothetical syllogism: A, therefore B, B, therefore C, if A, therefore C, is analytical. For how can we understand that it is always true? On the other hand, in the limit the solus ipse has an identity that is a sheer fiction. I’m always on the move. As I get to a point in time, I have left what just did happen. But when I am going to some future time, I have still not get there. What gives consistency to this chronological identity through time, shaping an apparent synchrony between the three temporal dimensions, instant actions and lasting ones?

Can we only know about future actions if they are already contained analytically in the present? What is the nature of a solus ipse? Is it an angle a non extended point, lying outside time and limiting space? Or is this solus ipse in its ipseitas expanded throughout time and eternity and exploding towards the vastness of space? Can there be any ipse outside the solitude of its own limited future? What's the perspective about an apparent open future limited though by my finite chronological and chronical future? What is the relationship between all the different points of view that I am and the different points of view the others solipsistically are?

If we have to assume a priori our chances of understanding lying in this side of tautology and contradiction, what type of amplitude has the shape of the world? Are there as many worlds as there are persons? What makes the connection between me and me in different spaces and at different times? Who or what lets me know that I am the same person that fell asleep yesterday and woke up this morning? Who or what lets me know that the person falling asleep yesterday’s evening is the same that will be falling asleep to night, woke up this morning and will wake up tomorrow? Who or what lets me know that I am the same ipse that woke up the very first time into this world and will die one day? Who or what lets me know that I am continuously the one and only the same old same person? Am I not a walking contradiction? Am I an “ausdehnungslosen Punkt” (T.5.64). How come?

Philosophical Investigations

Understanding that each person is a language game. At issue are the categories that allow us to organize our lives according to the various "systems" we are and the hierarchy of importance of things for every single person. Is there any rule for translating one’s life to each other? Each person expresses itself in a formal sense. But isn’t this understanding of life gotten by each one of us? We realized that the contents that are being pursued by us can be understood in a completely different by different people: my world is different from yours, the world of the happy is different from that of the miserable. Sinn and “Sinn verstehen” do not involve truth values in indirect discourse. They imply a complex relationship with the structure of direct speech. Eg the syntactic construction of indirect discourse in Latin. Reversing the perspective of Frege in relation to language - Sinn does not come after Bedeutung, but Bedeutung comes after the Sinn. What we are describing is the result of a turning point in LW’s thinking aiming at determine the context in which we are. The way a teenager dresses is seen differently by him and their parents. "A laughing mouth exists in a laughing face not outside of it."

The problem of anticipation is not a problem of a priori logical, but is actually an attempt to assign to the denoted referent a situational context of meaning. It corresponds to the opening of the form that puts the world being for me: a superlative, exponential and extreme possibility of me understanding the way things are. Understanding lies embedded in a pragmatical a priori. "Am Anfang war die Tat!" (Goethe). The leap we talked about at the outset of this session is now better understood as lying between understanding and get things done. If I think I understood one thing and did not do it, I didn't really have understood it. What we understand is the way we can get them done, we are able to become that. Even if formally: we understand the solution for a mathematical problem when we solve that problem. Understanding is peculiar to the different games we are playing. So that solving a problem is understanding the way a problem got in our way.

The problem of understanding life would be to become that way of understanding life and living that way, so to speak. Am I to become what I am or to be the way I was supposed to be? Am I living in such a way that I do answer to that peculiar form of pressure I am exposed to? How am I to anticipate what I am? And isn’t it this pressure felt by myself that configures me in a horizon of anticipation towards myself?

170. To understand is to get into things. To get into things it to let yourself be lead by them, to get into the flow. Understanding a book is to get into the flow of the book. It has to do with the sequence of parts of the book, while being there. I can olny read when I'm there. I’m there when I flow with the book. This can only happen in the tension of anticipation. Being in the flow of the book is the fulfillment of one peculiar way of anticipating it. I can read a book not only if I understand the language the book was written in, but when there is a peculiar way I “plunge” into reading and travel through times, getting from breakfast time to lunch time without sensing time flying by and me flying along with it.

On the other hand, I’m always formally anticipating what comes next. In the very first character on the left corner in the top of the page of the very first, I’m anticipating the reading from left to right, from the top to the bottom, from the first page to the next and the next until the last. It is so even if I am not aware of it. I am aware of my not breaking through the book, while moving mechanically my eyes and didn't understood after a while what am I reading about. I can read a sentence thirty times and still not paying attention to its content. What happens when I eventually understand it? What is the meaning of that change? What is the change that allowed me to “get there” through my self? For me to go to the world of perception I need to get catapulted towards there. I no that I can be seated down in a place and “be faraway”, “without really being there”. We are always moving from horizon to horizon, leaving the sense perceptive world and anticipating several options for us to get to some place, due to traffic. We leave the horizon where we consider several options and we get there again, driving the care. 

Anticipation allows me to getting in and out of all possible worlds and horizons. There are all sorts of communicating vessels between different worlds in relation to each other, in which I anticipate being able to getting out of there. I do not ever lose contact with reality, whit my getting out of where I am to become again myself. I am always this what I am willing to do, I am always anticipating some point in future time, always looking forward into something or into me.

172 The form of anticipation is not logic, is a result of my being taken by an agent, that leads me in a world that goes along with me, winding its way. Each world corresponds to the peculiar language game it’s being said. Being is always this peculiar way I am addressing towards myself talking about me as the self or as other or about others and the different situations we are in, trying to get along even if stock in a moment. We always feel this pressure like trying to get an optical resolution leading us to a better version of ourselves.

Sem comentários:

Enviar um comentário


3ª sessão. Handout. 19 de Feveiro, 2019 Sen. Ep. 58. 6.  Quomodo dicetur ο ὐ σία res necessaria , natura continens fundamentum o...