As Wittgenstein says and extol, Chapter-3 ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Previous Chapter Link:

As Wittgenstein says and extol, Chapter-2 ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

As Wittgenstein says and extol, Chapter-1 Kirno Sohochari

1.9: “Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical.”

1.10: “The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a theory but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. The result of philosophy is not a number of “philosophical propositions”, but to make propositions clear. Philosophy should make clear and delimit sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred.”

Moral of the Quote to me: The philosophical works utterly depend on the logical validity of thoughts. The questions and propositions are collective effort of your mind. Philosophy is not science and rarely permits itself to trail the scientific logic. Scientific logic depends on the clarity of its theory. Stephen Hawking mentioned four basic principles in his “Grand Design” for a symmetrical scientific theory. First of all the language of the theory should have some aesthetic beauty and quality to consider it further as a theory. Secondly the theory is standing on solid logic. It should bit inflexible in nature, so that you could not exploit or misinterpret the theory to fulfill your wishful desire. It will sturdy on its matching capacity with empirical experiment of present and at near future. Linguistic arrangements of the theory ought to be similar with the result of any experiment. The fourth and final condition is that it will have an ensemble views to the future. It is necessary to sort out an insightful outline that what will happen at remote future if we consider the theory.

tractatus-logico-philosophicus_quote_3Hawking’s explanation is a proof that scientific thought believes in clarity. The language tries to be trustworthy to the message of “think clearly, calculate clearly and examine clearly” before you submitted the proposition. Logic of science is always careful about its experimental clarity. Philosophy is not like that. The philosophical discourse is carefully careless about clarity. Language is metaphorical and perhaps rhetorical there. The motive is utterly different from any other science. Philosophical words are usually whimsical and generally used to create logical fallacies. The logic of philosophy is unintended to establish any experimental clarity. Philosophy is a science of fragmented logic. It is the progress of unfinished words, from where a Philosopher could proclaim his doubt to the proposition.

Philosophers are born to shatter the logic rather to be ascertaining it. The questions and propositions of philosophy are imaginary and bit capricious. It is not an easy matter to examine these capricious words in a laboratory as science usually does. Philosophical question is a thought-game of your mind. Your chaotic and whimsical words are like to rotating on doubt and confusion. A Philosopher is a fanciful person. He willingly tried to confuse his own self to avoid the clarity. He is unintended to pronounce clear words. Clarity is necessary for any discussion but it always carries the risk of certainty and inflexibility. The Philosopher does not permit his own to confine his thought in certainty. He believes that “certainty with clarity” is the ending line of any question and proposition!

It is indeed scientific that your thought is not certain and rarely showing the tendency tractatus-logico-philosophicus_quote_4of being certain to you. Thought is a procedural event but you are not the driving force of this event. Thoughtful proposition is the result of binary calculation. You could try to think clearly but the consequence of your clear and thoughtful computations depend on the acts happen in the exterior surface. The interaction between the exterior world and the interior surface of your mind is not predefined. Most of the time your effort to “think clearly and says clearly” is taking uncertain path and outburst with nonsensical words and propositions. These words are perhaps disturbing, but they are the foundation of any philosophical thoughts. The logic and language of philosophy is dubiously singular than any other discipline.

The thoughtful words of philosophy are deadly daring to break the wall of clarity. It is difficult to get a certain answer of any question from a Philosopher. It would be wrong if you think that he is a malfunctioned personality of giving certain answer about the problem. This is ought to be another wrong conclusion to treat his word as nonsensical. They are just abstract and metaphysical. These abstract words are the bearer of intangible thoughts, from where the philosopher could pass his time with the “Socratic Dog”. Philosophy is alive when the Dog is alive. The strength of philosophical words does not depend on clarity and certainty at all. Philosopher is perhaps a truth seeker but he is dutiful to the capacity of raising abstract words. These words are the root of his philosophical doubt and question.

My friend, it is indeed necessary to remember that you are not a Scientist and not obliged to clear your thoughts as he does. When you do this the language lost its abstraction power and start to behave differently. Philosophical words usually not appearing to the world to enslave them in inflexible meaning. This is perhaps not match with its logical process and intuition. Words are born to fabricating truthful meaning but it should have flexible. Truth of philosophy is relative and changing over time. It is not certain.

My friend, you are born to raise doubt on this certainty. The duty of a Philosopher is start from there. He starts his journey at the edging point of clarity. You ought to remember that the clearest thoughts of a Philosopher have left some doubt over there, from where the fragmented logic takes its journey to the Unknown Uncertainty. Philosophy is a discipline of fragmented logic. It is not an answer of the question, rather than it is a question to the answer. Philosophy is the jargon of “Unknown Uncertain”. It is difficult for a Philosopher to clear his thought by avoiding nonsensical words.

1.11: “The silent adjustments to understand colloquial language are enormously complicated.”
Moral of the Quote to me: A silent war between the standard and colloquial form is always beneath behind the language. The standard form tries to be stiff on its meaning to serve the purpose of broader communication. This form is massive on its lingual arrangements and usually used to build thoughtful and creative writing contents. It is an effective weapon of delivering cognitive jargon. The jargon is essential for knowledge based writing contents or disciplines. Standard form is much paper oriented and less effective for colloquial verbal communication. It is necessary to establish a bridge between these two forms but the bridging is complicated in the context.

tractatus-logico-philosophicus_quote_5The colloquial interaction with standard form of language is intricate. Colloquial words are getting new meaning and transformation when they relate with the standard. The new meaning could be far unlike and synthetic from the original meaning of colloquial words. Most of the time the standard form of any language steal the original beauties of colloquial words and makes it artificial. Standard is powerful due to its ability of devising critical thoughts and jargon in language. The colloquial words have strong varieties but they are skittish and temporal in their meaning. The path is thorny for a modern thinker to create cognitive jargon in colloquial words.

Treatment of cognitive thoughts in standard language is a specialized and experimental content in modern civilization. It is a byproduct of specialized education. Privileged and advance classes of the society have an ability to access it. You need to elevate your ability and status to the lucky height. This form of language is not natural. It is an essential but artificial product of civilization and manufactured by the advance classes. The civilized academic institutions stand far away from the colloquial form of language. These academic institutions are the factory of cognitive words, from where the standard form is processed and come to the market for sale.

Modern philosophical thoughts are not exceptional. The lexicon of philosophy lost its communication with the colloquial surface. Most of the Philosophers are an academician. Their thoughtful arrangement is a byproduct of an academic factory. The lexicon is cognitive and expensive to purchase. It is perplexing for those people who are not specialized in academic jargon. Today’s thoughtful knowledge is a silent war; it is a war between the natural and artificial language. This war makes complicated the communication channel of verbal and writing form of words.

It would be better if the words of modern cognitive knowledge could express itself in colloquial jargon but the desire is not realistic. It is strenuous for a thoughtful knowledge seeker to getting his freedom from the heavyweight titles. The class-oriented society honored and marked him as an “Academician” and “Scholar”. They caged the man with scented word and labeling his identity as “Intellectual”. All of these titles are the notorious invention of civilization and seem problematic for knowledge seekers.

Today’s thoughtful knowledge-seeker (perhaps he is a Philosopher and maybe a Poet) is a solitary person with his heavyweight titles. His word and jargon stands far away from the colloquial words of a Rickshaw-puller. Both of them are breathing in the same surface and both are solitary in their words and thoughts. These two people are distinct entity. They are quite different due to their social status. The verbal approach of a Rickshaw-puller is silly to the intellectual and his words are exceedingly absurd to the Rickshaw-puller. It is a curse of the civilization that the tug-of-war between an intellectual and a Rickshaw-puller captivates knowledge.

tractatus-logico-philosophicus_quote_6These Guys are not reciprocal. They are unable to understand or filling the gaps of each other cognitive thoughts. Both of them is a lonely peddler to their thoughts and languages. The world is funny. In spite of this, an autonomous interexchange also be observed and happening in between the standard and colloquial form. Cultural exchange is a powerful weapon and language is one of the crucial warriors of this exchange. It is fact that an unspoken border is lying down in modern language. Similarly, it also true that both form maintains an unconscious relation in unwittingly.

Social and cultural contrast of society people is difficult to understand. The privileged is always subduing the less privileged and the less are trying to defend it. This battle is certainly hideous but it is an age-long game of classes, where the privileged class keeps up the game for their self-interest.

Language is not to serve the purpose of communication only; it is a symbol of proclivity. It represents the proclivity of classes, where “self-interest” is a driving force to them. The privileged class tries to read the culture of less and make their own definition about it. They try to incite the less to believe this. Surprisingly the less are provoked them to accept the definition. The two rivals are strangely exchanging some lingual gestures in this moment of battle. They convert the taken words in their own style of living.

This is the silent adjustment of words and jargon, where the battling classes try to convey the message of adaptation at certain level. Problem is that it is difficult for a knowledge-seeker to understand the nature of adjustment with armored outfit of standard language. This is the tragedy of modern language and cognitive thinking. The game of exchange and division is not lucid at all!

Continued to the next chapter