Philosophical Investigations (Wittgenstein)

[Nicholas Perella]

Philip and Pastor Winzer,

Philip, simply the point you are making is that purpose is the cause, or maybe not the cause, but comes first before a 'thing in itself'. And that the 'thing' can be defined according to its 'purpose', but the 'thing' is still defined just only in accord to the 'things' purpose. Why is this significant? For instance a sandstone rock sitting in a field is a sandstone rock, and when somebody picks it up to cement and pile on a chimney, yes it is part of a chimney, a sandstone rock chimney. Would you agree that this indeed is agreeable to two or more people? And if so then what is so significant about starting with 'purpose' that if a person does not that person would be losing, or not realizing, or not profiting significantly?

Pastor Winzer, why is it significant that starting from 'purpose' to define the 'thing in itself' harmful?

Obviously this topic is worthy of a heartfelt, intelligent argument for two people find it to be thus but why? What stakes are involved? What is the profit or ill-profit?

 

[JimmyH]

What is the profit or ill-profit?

From my limited perspective it has been a very entertaining duel.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

What is the profit or ill-profit?

From my limited perspective it has been a very entertaining duel.

I agree. I am just trying to gain an understanding as to what is at stake. I think something is at stake and I think Pastor Winzer and Philip each know what is at stake, but I fail through my sinful ignorance to know what that is. I am seeking to be educated on the matter in a way that might help me understand.

I am wondering what Pastor Winzer thinks is of ill-profit concerning Philip's argument, and I am wondering what Philip thinks is of ill-profit concerning Pastor Winzer's argument. Thus what does Pastor Winzer soulfully think is of profit from his (Pastor Winzer's) own argument. And what does Philip soulfully think is of profit from his (Philip's) own argument. Thus what is at stake. I am hoping to encourage further dialogue by both for my sake in understanding and gaining clarity. Not that they have not been clear and do not provide understanding. It is a problem I am having, not them.

 

[Philip]

Why is this significant? For instance a sandstone rock sitting in a field is a sandstone rock, and when somebody picks it up to cement and pile on a chimney, yes it is part of a chimney, a sandstone rock chimney.

Right, but the point here is that the essence of the rock, even apart from a person's use of it, is still in a purpose. Since I believe in Divine Sovereignty, there are purposes in all objects. If I look at a mountain of sandstone and do not find it beautful or awe-inspiring, have I really seen it? Or have I missed a key element of its existence? There are no pointless things in the world. And I would even argue that a person who sees the rock and sees that it could be a chimney has also understood something important about it.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

Why is this significant? For instance a sandstone rock sitting in a field is a sandstone rock, and when somebody picks it up to cement and pile on a chimney, yes it is part of a chimney, a sandstone rock chimney.

Right, but the point here is that the essence of the rock, even apart from a person's use of it, is still in a purpose. Since I believe in Divine Sovereignty, there are purposes in all objects. If I look at a mountain of sandstone and do not find it beautful or awe-inspiring, have I really seen it? Or have I missed a key element of its existence? There are no pointless things in the world. And I would even argue that a person who sees the rock and sees that it could be a chimney has also understood something important about it.

Do you think that Pastor Winzer is not understanding this from his (Pastor Winzer) realism? "This" would be what I think is the main idea you are putting across, which if I am correct, is that, to use this example, the rock has a purpose, apart from man, because the purpose is given from God.

 

[MW]

I am wondering what Pastor Winzer thinks is of ill-profit concerning Philip's argument,

So the question is, WHAT? Not, HOW? But, WHAT? It is not HOW I am using my thought, but WHAT I am thinking.

I think we are all realists, and our whole view of God, of ourselves, and of the world is inherently realist. We function with the belief of BEING as a fundamental of life. We can't explain it but it is there. It is a blessed fact of creation for which we are eternally indebted to the One who has His being in and of Himself and gives being to all things.

Philip himself is a realist because he keeps coming back to THINGS and WHAT they are. When he sought clarification he asked WHAT? He instinctively reverts back to a realist default setting. But there is a reluctance to admit it. Perhaps he has been influenced by non-creationist philosophies, such as the one which was reviewed in the first post of this thread. There are various philosophies which are basically irrational because they deny the irreducible complexity of being. They atomise everything, break it up into its parts, and assign it a function, not realising that the parts were created as a complete mechanism and cannot work on their own. These philosophers suppose, if they can give a definition or a description of HOW things work, then they have adequately explained BEING. By this means they imagine that they can escape the ultimate questions of life which can only be answered by God.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

I am wondering what Pastor Winzer thinks is of ill-profit concerning Philip's argument,

So the question is, WHAT? Not, HOW? But, WHAT? It is not HOW I am using my thought, but WHAT I am thinking.

I think we are all realists, and our whole view of God, of ourselves, and of the world is inherently realist. We function with the belief of BEING as a fundamental of life. We can't explain it but it is there. It is a blessed fact of creation for which we are eternally indebted to the One who has His being in and of Himself and gives being to all things.

Philip himself is a realist because he keeps coming back to THINGS and WHAT they are. When he sought clarification he asked WHAT? He instinctively reverts back to a realist default setting. But there is a reluctance to admit it. Perhaps he has been influenced by non-creationist philosophies, such as the one which was reviewed in the first post of this thread. There are various philosophies which are basically irrational because they deny the irreducible complexity of being. They atomise everything, break it up into its parts, and assign it a function, not realising that the parts were created as a complete mechanism and cannot work on their own. These philosophers suppose, if they can give a definition or a description of HOW things work, then they have adequately explained BEING. By this means they imagine that they can escape the ultimate questions of life which can only be answered by God.

So if I understand both of you (Philip and Pastor Winzer), then Philip is saying there is importance (has purpose) and Pastor Winzer you are able to say what is important.

Philip, when I type and think out how to relate to what you are trying to say, I get to the point where I want to not mention any 'nouns' or reference to things. For example, you say there is importance, but what has importance is difficult for me to say if I try your glove on so to speak (if I try to go along with your way of thinking). Yet you manage without any appearance of difficulty to talk about the sandstone in my example. I am being open about my difficulty with your way of thinking in order to show where I am having a problem grasping exactly what it is that makes your thinking distinct from Pastor Winzer. Pastor Winzer points out that you are focusing on 'how?' and are trying to avoid the 'what?'. Is this a fair representation of your thinking?

Lord willing for the sake of my interest in understanding, I do not desire to witness falsely which is why I keep asking for clarification. Pardon my ignorance. I hope I am demonstrating that I am learning and that I am not portraying myself as a skeptic.

I thank both of you.

 

[Philip]

Rev. Winzer and Nicholas, forgive my tardy response but I was rather preoccupied today and tomorrow is the Lord's Day so my response will have to be delayed until Monday.