On Metaphysics
The most intelligent thing that has been said about the question of metaphysics was Ludwig Wittgenstein’s 7th proposition in Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (condensed version here, full version here), which stated that “whereof one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence.” The Tractatus was an attempt to logically outline the limits of knowledge and language.
In other words, there are some areas where Logic and Reason cannot speak with certainty… (and he spends the whole of another book, On Certainty discussing the very concept of certainty)… there is a realm of human experience which is outside the purview of Logic and Reason.
In such a case, while it is possible to speculate into that realm, such activity should be seen as just that–speculation. There is no certainty in metaphysics. There is only conjecture. Can some conjectures be seen as more reasonable or rational than others? We might see the possibility of a Christian second coming more rational than the flying spaghetti monster, but on the basis of its historical and cultural position, rather than for any cogent reasoning.
Agnostics are chided for their lack of enthusiasm for such speculation. The reason I hear most is the idea that ALL humans MUST believe in SOMETHING. The position of agnosticism is seen as sitting on the fence, refusing to choose sides, being unsure or uncertain, failing to take action upon the foundation of belief. But to me, and perhaps, to Wittgenstein, such a position is the most logical to take.
If, in the realm of metaphysics, nothing is certain (or, if it becomes certain, no longer is a part of that realm–I think of things like the structure of the solar system, which were once thought to be metaphysical speculation but were later scientifically validated), then is it not logical to remain uncertain? Is it not logical to “pass over in silence” without passing judgement?
I do not see a use for metaphysical certainty in life as others seem to. I do not have a conflict with exiting life without a predetermined expectation of what is to come. It is enough for me to know that all mortal beings die and that this death is part of our condition. It is enough for me to know that my fate will be the same as those who have preceeded me. When I enter this new world of which we cannot logically speculate, if I am able, I will experience firsthand what lies beyond.
Having said that, it seems to be a very human impulse to attempt description of the indescribable, to name the unnamable. As such, it is not to be ridiculed or suppressed. Let us simply see it for what it is. Between that which we speak and us is a Kantian “great gulf fixed.” All metaphysical discussion amounts to shouting across this unbreachable canyon. Yet sometimes this seemingly pointless shouting yields footholds of meaning which are of use. Sometimes we can eat imaginary bread. Sometimes it sustains us. Other times we starve nevertheless. Such is this realm.
So it goes…
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Your buddies are blogging. We miss your photos and all the good stuff you talk about. Please come on back.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I was just thinking the same thing! Where are you Cecil?