be good. However, viewed from an ideology that Aristotle would not present much of a problem, since in fact the only way to be a good person according to Aristotle is still happy, still, Wittgenstein believes in a different way, and given that the report is on it and Aristotle does not speak it anymore. Continuing
where I stayed, the author mentions that the inability of the words we use in everyday life, which he calls a sense "relative" to express ethical judgments because they express only facts that can be described, namely that occurred at a time and place, and ethical concepts to handle are the property of apparently supernatural, they can not be described. In fact, he mentions que these statements of relative value may be changed to stop this problem or similar file, "all judgments of relative value is a mere statement of facts and can therefore be exposed so that they lose any semblance of a trial value "(Wittgenstein, 1992).
An important point here is that ethics states that it does is sort the facts, that ethics is that not all events that occur have the same relevance as rain for someone to hit another person, and these two do not represent the same as to kill a person. In contrast, in the language on which is mainly represented by science, everything that happens is in the same plane, this does not mean they are not importantthings, just that science may be equally important to study because someone kills a person to study the rocks that fall. This explains it this way "Suppose one of you were a person omniscient (...) and that this man wrote all he knew in a big book (...) this book does not contain anything that would call ethical judgments" (Wittgenstein, 1992 ), this example discusses a hypothetical book that had all the proposals "for" true, since only describe facts.
Because you can not describe the absolute concepts, then you can not talk about them in a way that says something really specific, but here I am in complete agreement, because if something can be named andeliminate binding of similes in this case, one realizes that there is similar and what is still nonsense.
This as I understand is that somehow, when someone says that a person is valuable in some way make an allusion to the meaning that would have the same sentence if it were on an object pro is also different because, of course not referred to the same thing with this metaphor can not really explain what that really meant.
Then the author says, which in addition to everything discussed above makes the point is that, referring to the sentences in which words are used in an absolute sense, one refers to events that in fact if they occurred, what that conflicts with what he had said at the beginning of quand the facts that could be described could not create ethical judgments, the author mentions a paradox that says "is the paradox that an experience, a fact, seems to have supernatural value" (Wittgenstein, 1992).
This agrees with what I said about that, if they can say things about something and name that something, then it is indescribable, with this as I could resolve the problem, then, a good test of that is that there are few explanations of what it's good to be completely authentic in comparison to the number of people on the planet, as if it were true that you can not say anything about this then everyone would really his idea of what is good, and no how could reconcile the ideas.
This vTyrian without humans, so it can not be unavailable to us, in his words: "I think the trend of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to go against the limits of language (...) this go against the walls of our cage is perfectly, utterly useless "(Wittgenstein, 1992).
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
Ethics Conference
http://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/ ~ Tomasini / TRANSLATIONS / Wittgenstein / Etica.pdf
0 comments:
Post a Comment