Monk told us that Wittgenstein thought clearly about this. Life is far more important than logic. Improving oneself is to improve the world. The more he makes rapid progress in logic research, the more painfully he realizes that he is far from being completely clear in logic in his personal life.
In the letter, Wittgenstein told Russell that you may think that this kind of consideration for me is a wave, but how can I be a logician before being a person? The most important thing is to settle accounts with myself.
So what exactly is the crime of liquidation that he finally wants? In addition to the brief introduction of Wittgenstein’s writing history, Munch has almost no special place to write it before. But after the end of the article, we are surprised to find that Munch has another appendix devoted to WW Bartley III’s short essay on Wittgenstein in the 1970 s. The layout of this essay shows how big a challenge Bartley III posed to Munch. Simply put, in the focus of the debate, did Wittgenstein lose his otherness in the ten years when he went to the Austrian countryside to be a primary teacher?
Well, let’s give up our modesty and tell the truth. Wittgenstein didn’t engage in homosexual promiscuity in this issue. Bartley III advocated that Monk’s answer was that Monk’s judgment was more credible from the perspective of sufficient materials. He read through Wittgenstein’s encrypted notes, which recorded Wittgenstein’s fascination with those rude and direct gay teenagers but could not find a record of sexual promiscuity.
Compared with Bartley III, he exaggerates by catching shadows. Another widely recorded story is that Brian mcguinness Wittgenstein’s life is another extreme word. Homosexuality makes Wittgenstein repeatedly kill his thoughts and despair. Because of his intellectual life, Monk decided to take a middle road. He did not shy away from Wittgenstein’s love for same-sex boyfriends, from the great hygienist to Francis Skinner, and finally Chaz. These people made Wittgenstein, but Monk recognized that encryption notes revealed that Wittgenstein’s worry was not homosexuality, but sexual desire. The theory of sexual desire was not for the same sex or the opposite sex.
Although I accept Monk’s judgment, it seems to me that even Wittgenstein’s experience of homosexual promiscuity is also detrimental to Wittgenstein’s personality charm. Although Wittgenstein has the freshest saint temperament, he is not born but a saint, just as though every cell of his thinking philosophy is permeated with genius, Wittgenstein often falls into the responsibility that I am a damn fool.
People praise GE Moore as simple as a child, but this is of no value to Wittgenstein. Not a child deserves praise, because you talk about simplicity, which is not a struggle by one person, but a natural temptation. For Wittgenstein, life is really a complete self-liquidation, a battle of self-nature.
Therefore, in this book, the most we read is not a natural genius moral saint, but just after taking on the responsibility of genius. Wittgenstein’s attitude towards his narrow body, weakness, hypocrisy and despair is eternal. The core of Wittgenstein’s overall attitude towards life is to be himself, which means that being true to himself is not against his responsibility. Perhaps the most important aspect for him is to be an outstanding person, but don’t try to be an outstanding person.
Russell once said that Wittgenstein may be the most perfect example of genius he has ever seen in the traditional concept. His passion is profound and strong. The unique feature of Monk is that he can finally protect him. Although he is full of passion, these passions are not Monk passions. He hides himself behind him and makes Wittgenstein’s passion promote him by arranging and combining all kinds of hard facts and hard materials.
Now we have one last question left. It may be helpful to take Wittgenstein to savor these two sentences.
When all the meaningful questions have been answered, the problems of life are still untouched.
In my way of doing philosophy, the goal of the philosophy department is to give some form of expression so that the specific anxiety disappears.
Wittgenstein once described himself as a rhinoceros who broke into a porcelain shop, but Wittgenstein wanted to smash not exquisite and beautiful porcelain, but unnecessary troubles for intellectual life. Philosopher temptation was the same for life liquidation. Similarly, it was not to uproot himself, but to put himself back to Wittgenstein. It was just as meaningful to say an expression in concrete life. Monk thought that it would be a comfort for Wittgenstein if he could put his life events into a certain mode.
For Wittgenstein, this life style is the cultural atmosphere of Vienna at the end of the 19th century, but Tolstoy-style Christian life style or simply intellectual life is completely pure physical strength. Wittgenstein has never done these things. He once worked as a rural teacher, architect, gardener and hospital nurse.
But it seems like a spell. His least identities make him put himself back into a certain mode forever. Compared with the former adherents of Austria-Hungary, Jews, homosexuals and philosophers, these identities make him naturally not belong to a community. A friend once recalled that Wittgenstein thought of Rialyosha, an idiot in brothers karamazov. At first glance, it was scary and lonely.
Wittgenstein said that writing a good philosopher and thinking about the problem of philosophy is a matter of will, even more so, it is an intellectual problem. Resisting misunderstanding and temptation, resisting superficial will and preventing a person from obtaining the true solution are often not his lack of wisdom but his pride. In fact, philosophy is also a life.
At the last stage of his life, Monk described an unusually peaceful picture to us. Wittgenstein, his landlady, and Mrs. Bevan became close friends. They walked in the pub at 6 o’clock every night. Mrs. Bevan recalled that we always wanted two glasses of port wine, one for me and the other for him. This is the only thing I know that he didn’t practice it all the time. Their conversation was extremely relaxed. Wittgenstein never discussed with Mrs. Bevan the topics she didn’t understand. Among us, I never felt inferior or knew.
It seems that Wittgenstein finally reached an understanding of life. On April 8, 1951, Wittgenstein died and the last sentence left to the world was to tell them that I had an excellent life.
Wittgenstein’s life theory presents a kind of life that suddenly condenses intellectually and spiritually. Perhaps some people think that this life is suffocating. Perhaps people are discouraged by this maze because it is too complicated. I still strongly recommend reading these fears. A friend of mine once told me that reading this reminds him of the feeling of reading Jin Yong in his early years. I am not surprised at this strange metaphor, because here you can’t read Jin Ge’s iron horse in the spiritual world. What is more important is whether you see a genius or not.
11 years
Thoughts on being a political philosopher in today’s context
In Nicomachean, Aristotle said that young people are not suitable for politics because they lack life experience, which is exactly the theme of political argument. He also said that a young person is not suitable for politics because they are too indulgent in life research. sallsall, from this, it can be seen that politics must understand the complexity of life and the limitations of human beings, and can’t just cite knowledge or appeal to temperament in an attempt to establish a good idea in the world. Therefore, Aristotle pointed out in politics that we should probably. Consider what kind of government can stimulate our enthusiasm when there are no external obstacles, but we must consider what kind of government is more suitable for a particular country. Because it is important, we don’t have to know which form of government is the best, but we also need to know which form of government is possible. And political theorists, I guess he implies that Plato, despite his great ideas, should always be familiar with what form is the best in the abstract sense and what form is the best in specific situations.
In the most desirable hesdesirable political degree, political philosophers must make judgments and trade-offs. It is easy to talk about the most desirable or desirable political degree abstractly without specific situations, but it is difficult to think about the most desirable or desirable political degree under complex conditions. sall4sall, a slightly absurd fact, may be that the most puzzling thing is that the current situation of China political philosophers in today’s context is not the most desirable and the most different, but the best hespp. Ular is the most confusing, but in this article, I am not going to answer the second question directly, but try to talk about my superficial understanding of the first question from a general idea.
A homogeneous society VS heterogeneous society
According to Sidiwick’s view, the good gd priority in ancient Greek ethics and modern ethics is called attractive araive moral thought, while the priority in righ moral thought is called imperative iperaive moral thought. sall5sall ancient Greek ethics is attractive moral thought, because at that time, people would belong to highly homogeneous acquaintances, and they would almost agree beyond teleological cosmology. The citizens of ancient Greek polis pursued the same goal or value, and people’s moral behavior was often subject to the same goal and value. Germany wants to attract inspiration, while Kant represents modern ethics, which belongs to imperative morality. Because of the drastic changes in the concept of social form, a heterogeneous large-scale stranger will be able to resort to sexual orders or absolute responsibility if he wants to continue to maintain the unity and stability of the society. In my opinion, it first ensures the consistency of the starting point, that is, the unity of citizens’ interests and interests, while the pursuit of such goals for a better life is given to specific individuals or groups
Roughly speaking, the political life of ancient societies was consistent, while that of modern societies was not broken. This word is because political societies, even pluralistic political societies, still need some thin moral value foundation. However, the dichotomy between law and practice does not mean that they are not separated.
Lun life asks whether I can live a happy and beautiful life and political life asks whether we should live together. These two questions are different in two key words.
The first key word is action, that is, the subject in the statement is different from each other. Life is first in the first person singular. I ask questions. Political life is first in the first person plural. We ask questions to attract moral ethics. Political life is consistent because the first person plural can be reduced to the first person singular in a homogeneous acquaintance meeting or the first person singular can be expanded without obstacles. Only in this sense can I live a better life and we can live a better life. These two questions can be exchanged equivalently. We can say that political life or political philosophy is not independent in the ancient meeting of the center of attractive moral thought, but it is attached to moral life in the modern meeting of the center of imperative moral thought. In other words, the boundary between group and self has become irretrievable.
The second key word is that action points to different attractive morality points to a better life, the ultimate goal of life in the world, imperative morality points to living together, the intermediate goal of life in the world, and the ultimate goal of a better life is not answered by us in a unified standard
It is thought-provoking that Aristotle insists that man is a part of the body, but he firmly believes that it is good without members, that is to say, good in the community. Aristotle has never denied that it is necessary for individual elements in human life to implement a common government because people assimilate with each other among homogeneous citizens. On the one hand, thousands of citizens don’t need to take turns to govern or participate in part because they don’t have their own things, which can benefit the community. sall6sall can be seen that for Aristotle, even if it is a political community Geeinshaf rather than a political society Gesellshaf, it is still a heterogeneous body instead of smoothing out all differences.
Is there still a Kantian question in the political theory? In other words, the political philosopher is in a meeting where this kind of discussion and debate is involved. The answer must be that it can be in a meeting where all kinds of goals conflict. The importance of this expression lies in that it implies that all kinds of goals of the political philosopher will conflict with each other. By definition, the concept of bydefiniin is linked. In other words, the political philosopher is in a meeting where all kinds of goals conflict with each other. The problem is an analytical proposition. Berlin said that in a meeting with a single goal, there will be a debate on what is the best means to achieve this goal, and the debate on means is also technical, that is, the nature is empirical. sall8sall, this debate is at best a question of governance rather than politics, not politics and philosophy.
Although the various goals of political philosophy will conflict with each other, the concept is related but different in terms of definition. If this big individual wants to live together in peace, it also needs some homogeneity. Most people agree that it is meaningful to discuss political philosophy in today’s China context. Then first of all, we have set up a consensus meeting for a single-function doctrine, prehensivedrinesall9sall. Secondly, this meeting also wants to be a unified and stable political meeting. We must ask where we should ensure a degree of homogeneity.
Rawls said in political rationalism that we regard the political meeting as a group of words that are unified by recognizing the same doctrine, then the oppressive state power is necessary for a political community. During the theory of justice, Rawls also tried to establish a universal principle of justice, sall1sall. At this time, Rawls has fully realized the danger of this attempt, because even if this politics will be unified in Kant’s mill, people will try to put the political meeting on the basis of other human rationalism. Unifying on the basis of a doctrine, whether it is religious or non-religious, is bound to be commented by Burton Dray, that is, someone has read the theory of righteousness and been told by Rawls, but with the passage of time, this life will still not accept this policy. If we understand the policy, politics will be highly homogeneous, we must resort to government power or coercion sall1sall or Platonic noble lie sall13sall, and we are unwilling to move government power or tell noble lies, so we must find another way according to the degree of political homogeneity.
Second, achieving Excellence VS satisfying desires
Attractive morality is a path to promote morality. It requires all individuals in the political meeting to March towards the better honor, which is uniformly defined. However, these concepts have never been linked by a few people in concept. They are inherently hierarchical concepts. We can’t ask everyone to divide Excellence equally. This is because the concept is impossible and therefore clear. Aristotle criticized Faria for ignoring people’s desire for honor Excellence in politics, and on the other hand, criticized Hippetto for giving this desire too high a position in the city-state. sall14sall.
Today, many conservatives in China are accustomed to sternly reprimanding individualism for neglecting honor, so that human beings should be more clear-headed than Strauss. He pointed out that we can’t forget such an obvious fact. By giving people democracy, they also gave them outstanding people. Alan Bloom, the eldest brother of sall15sall Strauss, once criticized those who were in a hurry. Defenders of individualism may have confused the two concepts of defense flattery, and they thought that Strauss did not flatter democracy precisely because he was a citizen. In my opinion, Bloom’s criticism is also suitable for those who are worried about the opposition. They may have confused the two concepts of not flattering and opposing. Not flattering democracy does not mean that we must oppose democracy.
Rawls discusses Strauss’s theory of justice. He said that although fairness and justice allow the recognition of outstanding value in a well-ordered society, the pursuit of human goodness is limited to the scope of rules. People can’t have greater activities in value. sall16sall strictly limits the pursuit of human goodness to the scope of rules, opposes the strong state machine and seeks outstanding value. This position and attitude is in the imperative moral thinking field. Before admitting that heterogeneous large-scale people will have conflicts with each other, they firmly oppose the suppression of facts.
We agree that Aristophanes’ judgment that desire and self-interest dominate politics in the cloud means that unjust words win and noble political life ends sall17sall, but the key point is that when we are in an era when desire and self-interest have got rid of illegal status and acknowledge that righteousness has become the primary virtue, then we must face and respond to desire and self-interest and regard it as a conditional starting point but not a standard end point rather than an emotional critical stress disk to reject human Excellence in the modern background. The idea of glory can no longer be realized in political life. In this regard, noble political life may be over, but now the plural form of noble life has achieved greater success. I believe Strauss will reach an agreement with Rawls on this point.
Michael walzer once admitted that in a certain sense, rationalism, I mainly mean Locke’s rationalism, can answer this question. The theory of political meaning and causation has accepted the change of the scale of the society, resulting in a new individualism sall18sall. This thesis may be further extended. As far as the response to the characteristics of pluralism in the modern world is concerned, rationalism may give a most feasible and desirable answer.