Judas

Judas puckered up then plunged down
to potter’s field, Aceldama

Hail, Master
Master, Master

the price of blood
left hanging, not for long, he fell headlong
(rope snapped?)
desolated his habitation
by transgression fell

the lot fell, not Judas, on Matthias, who was numbered
twelfth (eleventh and then one)
while Judas hit bottom, no bounce, burst
burst asunder in the midst
(middle popped?)

his bowels moved unmercifully
gushed out
reward of iniquity

was his guilt heavy
did it account for his headlong fall, his bursting, his gushing?
he was thirty pieces of silver lighter
but that pucker
that kiss
that kiss was weighty
weightier than the silver that bought it

he died (fell headlong)
kissed the dirt
dirt he bought
for kissing

Frege and Wittgenstein on the Difficulty of Audience

Please excuse this letter as springing from my unsatisfied need for communication.  I find myself in a vicious circle:  before people pay attention to my Begriffsschrift, they want to see what it can do, and I in turn cannot show this without presupposing familiarity with it.  So it seems I can hardly count on any readers for the book I mentioned…  (Letter to Marty)

This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it–or similar thoughts.   It is therefore not a text-book.  (Preface to TLP)

Quod Erat Faciendum: Philosophical Investigations and Confessions

I am currently at work on a new essay on Resolute Readings of TLP.  I am coming at the topic sideways, as it were, beginning with a debate over PI between O. K. Bouwsma and Gilbert Ryle.

With that on my mind, I had a brief but useful conversation with my friends Reshef and Dafi Agam-Segal.  We were talking about PI and about Wittgenstein’s comment to his students that he did not want to make them believe anything they did not believe, but rather to do something they would not do.  It occurred to me then that perhaps a useful way of understanding Wittgenstein’s work, PI included, would be to take it to be punctuated by QEFs (quod erat faciendum:  which was to have been done) rather than by QEDs.

Since I have mentioned Augustine here recently, I will note that I think this distinction applies, albeit somewhat differently, to Confessions too.  Augustine said of Cicero’s Hortensius that it “changed his way of feeling”.  That phrase describes the work of Confessions–to change the reader’s way of feeling, to encourage Christian inwardness to flower:  “Be it granted, be it fulfilled, be it opened.”

Bringing Philosophy Peace?

Wittgenstein wants to bring philosophy, the philosopher-in-us-all, peace.  When we encounter this aim in PI, it is easy to believe that what he wants to bring philosophy, the philosopher-in-us-all, is knowledge.  And of course there is something right about that, especially if we modulate the claim to one about self-knowledge.  (After all, Wittgenstein cares particularly about the philosophical questions that bring philosophy itself into question, questions that bring the philosopher-in-us-all himself into question.)  Crucially, however, self-ignorance involves alienation from ourselves more than it involves any failure of introspective acuity.  And so acquiring the peace of self-knowledge is less learning something about ourselves than it is acknowledging something about ourselves.  (Self-knowledge is typically bitter for good reason.)

So the peace Wittgenstein wants to bring is the peace of self-knowledge; we might even call it the peace of faith.  But faith in what?

Before answering, I want to help myself to an idea of Marcel’s.  Marcel talks about faith, about fundamentally pledging oneself, as reaching so deeply into the person pledged that it affects not only what the person has, but who the person is.  His term for this, the idea I want, is existential index.  When person’s belief has an existential index, ‘(e)’, the belief absorbs fully the powers of the person’s being.  For Marcel, beliefs(e) are incompatible with pretension:  A person who believes(e) is humbled by that in which he believes(e).

And now I want to say something that I know sounds paradoxical.  Wittgenstein wants to bring the philosopher-in-us-all to belief(e) in himself, so that he is no longer tormented by questions that bring himself into question.  But this will be a belief(e) in himself–a rallying to himself, to borrow another idea of Marcel’s–that involves no pretension.  In fact, it will be a form of humility, a form of true love of himself.  He will have faith in himself, but a faith that acknowledges his own nothingness.  This is a faith that allows the philosopher to be filled with the spirit of truth (although not, notice, with the truth); it is a faith that allows him to be light seeking for light.  Such humility does not protect the philosopher-in-us-all against error.  It does protect him against depending on himself.

When the philosopher-in-us-all is tormented by questions that bring himself into question, his has fallen prey to self-dependence.  He has lost his sense of his own thinking as a creative receptivity, a dependent initiative.  He believes he has to be responsible for himself, that he has to support every response to a question by responding to questions about that question.  To believe that is to fall into the predicament of being unable to make philosophical problems disappear.  Pretension on the part of the philosopher-in-us-all guarantees the appearance of the philosophical problems.  Pretension is a lack of faith, the surety of peacelessness.

(Probably a bad idea to try to write about such things when it is so late and I am so tired.)

The Form of a Philosophical Problem

Wittgenstein comments that a philosophical problem has the form:  “I don’t know my way about.”  –So much in so little.

But I want now only to say this.  To feel the force of Wittgenstein’s comment, keep in mind that Wittgenstein is not lost in terra incognita; he is no stranger in a strange land.  He is lost at home.  He has to find himself, but to find himself where he is, where he has always been.  Everything around him is so alien and so familiar, so exotic and so everyday.  He is gone but he never left.

Sometimes the hallway to my living room becomes non-negotiable.  A philosophical problem has the form of homesickness in my easy chair.

Lloyd Cole “Shelf Life” (Lyrics)

Shelf Life

I am consumed by delusions of grandeur
I’m fallen prey to the beautiful girl
I have seen romance in the obvious quarters
And I have painted myself into that world

I have constructed my own personal Babel
But many passages remain out of print
Leaving me in an unresolved sentence
Without an idea of where it went

I have developed an unnatural candour
In contradiction to all I hold dear
I think of myself as tall and silent
This little voice is all that I hear

Now the night’s drawing in
I’m your unworthy friend
At the untimely end of a lifetime

Thinking I might hold on to my first marriage
I learned the language of the self obsessed
It was only later at the post-grad parties
That it rewarded me with great success

No longer waiting for my prayers to be answered
No longer waiting for my publisher’s call
No longer charming in my reminiscence
Only immersed in a faint afterglow

Now the night’s drawing in
I’m your unworthy friend
At the ungodly end of a lifetime

Faith Seeking Understanding?

What happens when faith seeks understanding?  Is it an attempt by faith to change, to become something new, higher–say, knowledge?  Is it an attempt to understand something that is held by faith but held in, say, incomplete understanding, but where complete or at any rate more complete understanding would not change my relationship to what is understood (it would remain faith)?  Or is it an attempt to secure knowledge that could be somehow ranged alongside faith without turning that faith into knowledge?  Or is it an attempt to come to know something that could only be known by first having faith in it, so that the subsequent knowledge has to be regarded as faith-having-molted-into-knowledge, not as faith-replaced-by-knowledge?  (I take it that not all knowledge is required to begin in faith.  But how would we understand the distinction between knowledge that is so required to begin, and knowledge that is not?)  Or should understanding here be juxtaposed with knowledge (say, in a Cavellian way) so that faith seeking understanding cannot be taken to put faith in relationship to knowledge (at least not straightforwardly)?  Would the sense of ‘understanding’ here be factive or quasi-factive?  If so, how far could we keep it from knowledge?  If not, what then is understanding?  (A set of propositions expressed, a la Frege, in the That p form–showing that the propositions are entertained but not asserted?  Something else?)  –Questions, questions, questions.

You knew it was coming:  What is Anselm doing?