In response to Megan's blog about Wittgenstein and Tillich:
I wonder if Wittgenstein could argue that having rational criteria for belief is just a frame of reference we have because we were brought up in a certain way. Of course, you can't argue this if one holds that humans are, by nature, rational. In this case rationality would be some kind of genetic, unchangeable frame of reference.
But I still think that one could have a rational frame of reference and change some frames of reference, at least ones that didn't completely contradict one another, as a result of some experience. Yes, though, it seems that a religious conversion would be just this sort of contradiction. And I'm not arguing that an argument such as Tillich's should convince anyone. It just may be that for certain people, like you, and like me, for instance, such religious 'experiences' couldn't convince us. So those who are convinced, even if they live within a rational framework, may be living in a larger system of reference that allows such contradictions to rationality. There may be certain conditions on what it will take to allow a contradiction, i.e., it has to be a certain type of experience that causes such and such an effect on them.
You could look at it from another perspective, say, of a believer in god such as Tillich. Maybe it's the case that his frame of reference doesn't allow him to see the world, even to see rationality, without a belief in, or a feeling of, the divine. Maybe he sees it as irrational to not hold a belief in god in spite of an overwhelming feeling of fear at knowing one will one day die. It may be that he can't see it your way because he doesn't have the same frames of reference as you: you are both, as it were, living in two different worlds. You can't even imagine holding something that's outside your frame of reference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Kelly,
It's interesting to imagine a frame of reference that includes rationality but also allows for things that contradict rationality, and I think you are right that some people think that way. Such a frame of reference could certainly become quite dangerous to one's survival. As long as the only contradiction is a belief that some omnipotent being created the universe, it might be fairly safe.
But it seems to me that it could lead pretty quickly to the sort of behavior in which one rationally cooks one's breakfast and pays one's bills before going out and irrationally murdering someone because one's god instructed one to do so. So I guess I'd have to say that I'm pretty vehemently opposed to such a frame of reference as you describe, but I agree with you that it could exist. I just don't think it's a case where I should shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I respect your frame of reference" or something.
Megan,
I agree completely. I was just trying to explain how someone could find a belief in something irrational to exist in spite of holding another, rational frame of reference.
It's interesting that you bring up respect. It seems that you're worried this talk of frames of reference could get us into issues of moral relativism and the like. I wonder how (and if) Wittgenstein could address this. It seems we don't want to say we'd justify anyone's actions because they were doing so in a certain frame of reference that we couldn't understand. What would Wittgenstein say to this? Obviously the issue of ethics deeply troubled him, though he remained largely silent on what exactly it means to be ethical. And one could even take his comments about morals to support some kind of moral relativism. If, like religion, morals come from some sort of life experiences, then how could we ever argue that there are some actions universally considered to be wrong?
I think this may have been a serious issue for Wittgenstein, and maybe ethics is something he couldn't figure how to fit into his system of language games. Can one argue that Wittgenstein has some notion of human nature? Because if you can, then it seems that ethics and morality could be a language game we play, it's just a way of expressing our natural repulsion to acts that undermine human and societal survival, and that having prohibitions on certain acts, calling certain things 'right' or 'wrong' is our way of ensuring that those acts which undermine individuals' and society's survival are not committed.
Post a Comment