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