« Happiness Maxims | Main | The Concept of the Metaphysical Self in Wittgenstein as Limit Concept »

Friday, November 06, 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I see strong connections with Wittgenstein here. Tractatus 5.6331 e.g.

But Wittgenstein's conclusion would be different here, no?

See also the intro to the Tractatus. "... the aim of the book is to draw a limit to thought, or rather - not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts: for in order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

I'm really enjoying this latest run of posts. A certain amount of mental fog dissipated as I read this one.

Thanks, Dave. I think I am being very clear except for the para on ipseity which is not as clear as what precedes it. Thanks for reading.


You are quite right to point to the relevance of the Tractarian Wittgenstein. The transcendental subject is not in the world of objects any more than the eye is in its own visual field. But can't I see my eyes in a mirror? Yes, but those are SEEN eyes, not SEEING eyes. What's more, it is not the eyes (or any part of the visual system, optic nerve, visual cortex, etc.) that does the seeing: I do the seeing. But that I is not the psychophysical complex but the pre-mundane, trans. I.

And so I would say that the concept of the metaphysical subject -- I would call it 'transcendental' -- at 5.633 is a limit concept. Add it to the list.

But is it positive or negative?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008



July 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad