Metaphysical question

The Golden Opportunity Philosophy Missed

“Academic philosophy missed its golden opportunity in 1921, when Ludwig Wittgenstein first published his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which ended with the following passage:

'The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method. My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'

This was the critical moment for all academic philosophers to maintain total silence and to advance the discipline to the level of pure contemplation along the lines of the meditation practices of the Zen Buddhists. But even Wittgenstein had to go on talking and writing, for how else can a philosopher show that he is working and not just goofing off?”

– Alan Watts, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, p. 137 ================

Marco Almeida

Academia discourages free thinking, period.

Edit: The reason for my postulate (is theoretically speaking. . . ) I understand exactly what Witt~ says here. My point is simpler: that even if I need to prove I can understand (because I say I do) but have no reasons to substantiate it? (How do we know that silence is provable.) Again, I know exactly what Witt~ infers. However, academically the vacuum we live in for fear of untraceable metaphysical action. More so, it takes a very high of skill to master. Therefore, my original statement in accordance to academia is fear based, profs are shit stupid when it comes to practical thinking. They'd probably negate Witt~ himself.

Edit 2: And if you fail to understand anything I tabulated here^. . . god help you. 

=====================

Why would it be impossible to understand everything?

°○●●••°°

(Not me)

Maybe it’s impossible to understand everything

because understanding isn’t what we think it is.

It’s not a light switch. It’s a nervous system.

It’s not revelation. It’s prediction that hasn’t collapsed yet.

The brain doesn’t seek truth. It minimizes surprise.

What we call “understanding” is often just the moment our expectations stop flinching.

But the world isn’t stable enough to hold still.

And neither are we.

What we call “everything” shifts when we look at it.

And what we call “self” is a story told by the body to keep breathing.

So maybe we can’t understand everything

because understanding isn’t a destination.

It’s a rhythm.

A temporary clarity inside a field that keeps moving.

And that might be more beautiful

than any final answer.

°•●•°°°

My rebuttal:

Marco Almeida

It's possible. We understand what is within the means of our reality. The end goal in everything we grasp is what meaning I assign to it. That is to acknowledge the truth, as it converts into purposely asking those questions. Prejudices are a constant in doubting what those answers are, and if they represent a relevant view in our thoughts.