Wittgenstein 2. Inexpressible

After posting the previous article, I started reading Wittgenstein‘s books systematically and could not understand most of what I read so far. I understood words and even sentences. And I appreciated the solid logical foundation of his thoughts. But why he said what he said or why would such a statement followed the previous one was beyond me. So, I quickly browsed through and picked up only a few sentences – like those quotes I have provided in my previous article – those that were more accessible to me.

Or so I thought until I started reading the interpretation of these quotes and realized some of them I misunderstood completely. Even worse, different authors offered different interpretations. This made me lost even deeper in the woods. I talked to my daughter, who is a professional philosopher, and she recommended me to read books of two well-respected Wittgenstein interpreters: Crispin Wright and Saul Kripke. But even titles of their books looked forbidding to me.

That was a disappointment. On a bright side, reading Wittgenstein and about him, seeded me with many new ideas and views. In this sense, he had achieved his goal to “stimulate someone to thoughts of his own” as he stated:

And that is what I would like to share – my thoughts, triggered by the Wittgenstein’s works.

In the preface to his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein wrote that he tried to write the book as a traditional continuous narrative with arguments and examples logically arranged in a step-by-step exposition. But he never succeeded, while his time – his life – was running out. So, he settled on what he called “remarks.” And he rationalized the situation: “For this compels us to travel over a wide field of thought criss-cross in every direction. The philosophical remarks in this book are, as it were, a number of sketches of landscapes which were made in the course of this long and involved journeyings.” And: “Thus this book is really only an album.“

In my – unprofessional – view, that is a crucial statement, missed by some interpreters. Combine it with his “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” and consider the following quotes:

Tractatus, 4.115 It [philosophy] will signify what cannot be said, by presenting clearly what can be said.

Tractatus, 4.1212 What can be shown cannot be said.

From the letter to Bertrand Russell (his first mentor in philosophy): “the main point is the theory of what can be expressed by propositions—i.e., by language . . . and what cannot be expressed by propositions, but only shown; which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy.”

From the letter to Ludwig von Ficker (prospective publisher): “My work consists of two parts: the one presented here plus all that I have not written. And it is precisely this second part that is the important one.” (The bold font is mine).

Now, back to the “album” and “sketches of landscapes.” It looks to me that Wittgenstein tried to outline the boundaries of expressible. To describe it systematically would require to describe everything we know and can express – an impossible task! Humanity tried to do it for thousands of years. So, Wittgenstein just sketched these boundaries. And, by doing it, he outlined the other side – the inexpressible one – that can be only felt or shown. 

Wittgenstein says it explicitly in the preface to his Tractatus: “The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather—not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).“

And then he adds: “The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense.“

This word “nonsense” first surprised me like a contradiction to his own assessment of this second part as “the important one.” But, after more reading, it became clear to me that he just meant “it cannot be expressed in a logical proposition.” Even more, he insisted we should not even try to do it and thus qualified his own book as “senseless“:

“6.54 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.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.“

That is how Tractat ends.

Because, if we try to talk about inexpressible – which goes beyond the language capacity – like philosophy does, in Wittgenstein’s view – we begin fighting non-existing problems and just waste time. That’s how Wittgenstein was able to claim that he solved all philosophical problems – by dismissing the alleged problems as nonsensical – made-up problems. “For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday,” he said in his Philosophical Investigations (section 38).

Whether this Wittgenstein’s claim about philosophy has merits or not, I cannot be the judge. There is a chunk of truth to it though. We all know people who talk so much that create global warming with their breath but produce nothing useful. Some of them even hold important public and scientific positions. And I definitely agree with Wittgenstein that there are aspects of the world that can only be felt and cannot be expressed in words.

Ethics, esthetics, and religion belong to this area – the other side of the expressible. Poetry, art, music, even literature, when it engages our feelings, creativity, and imagination, are beyond the boundaries outlined by Wittgenstein.

I remember talking to my college roommate Igor Terekhov… so many years ago that I even do not dare to count. He spent nights painting. He was a gifted physicist but eventually became a full-time painter. The last time we talked face to face – in his house at night already after college – I asked him what did he try to do? What was the point he wanted to express with his paintings? He talked, but I could not get it. I asked questions, and he tried to answer and to explain it again. After several iterations, I suddenly understood him. It could not be expressed in words, but I felt it, I knew what he was talking about. I looked in his eyes and saw that he knew that I understood him. I asked, “So, you are trying to express THAT?!” He nodded slightly, “Yes.” 

There was nothing more to say. We both knew that the task he took on himself was probably impossible to accomplish. But we also knew that all other tasks were not as worthy and he would not be himself if he did not take it on. It is in the nature of any talent – to challenge itself all the way to the breaking point.

Such moments happen not very often, if ever. I treasure this memory all my life.

The connection between Igor and me survived despite the enormous geographical and time stretches. The funny, if not utterly mysterious, event confirmed it recently. He was sitting in his home in Russia reading about Wittgenstein when decided to check his email, which he does not do often. And there, in his input box, he found my first post about Wittgenstein, although we never talked about him and barely exchanged just simple birthday greetings for years.  

I think Wittgenstein would ask, “So, what?” And Carl Jung would shrug, “Have you heard about synchronicity?”

Enough said for today. I will continue about Wittgenstein and my discoveries in the next post.

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.“