I sent a high school student a quote from Wittgenstein and asked her what she thought of it. Rather than dialogue over a question this week I thought it would be interesting to see what you thought of her response to the quote.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

WILLIAM JAMISON <wsjamison@uaa.alaska.edu> wrote:

How do you like this quote from Wittgenstein?

If I am unhappy and know that my unhappiness reflects a gross discrepancy between myself and life as it is, I have solved nothing. . . so long as I have not achieved the supreme and crucial insight that that discrepancy is not the fault of life as it is, but of myself as I am . . . The person who has achieved this insight and holds on to it, and who at least tries again and again throughout his life to live up to it, is religious

Her response:

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 12:36 AM
To: wsjamison@uaa.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Wittgenstein quote to ponder

It's interesting. I would agree with it to some extent, but once you realize your unhappiness and discover that it is not life's fault but your own wouldn't that make you more unhappy? It is a very unhappy thought that the blame for discomfort or problems rests on oneself and solely on oneself.

The way that I interpret Wittgenstein's quote is that a person who no longer blames others for the discomfort he feels but realizes it is his own fault and tries to change himself to rid the 'unhappiness' and always keeps this in mind for future discomfort is religious. Meaning basically that the world isn't uncomfortable or unhappy it is the person who is uncomfortable or unhappy.

With that in mind change is the obvious solution to the problem. Because when you change your views so that whatever makes you unhappy now is either neutral or makes you happy, it no longer is a problem. However, can a person really change themselves enough so that the original problem is no longer a problem? And furthermore how much change can a person withstand before becoming uncomfortable with it?

Every person has a self, and that self is constantly going through changes, but with all things in the world there is a core to that self. An element that makes the self myself or yourself instead of someone else's self. But if one is constantly trying to change so that no things are a bother in order to be religious (or for the mere sake of things not being a bother) does that core-self remain intact? That question indicates that the self is composed of complaining, of discomfort and of unhappiness, but isn't that the core of humans? To complain that something isn't good enough, and therefore it must be made better. And 'better' is the world-wide change that people want to make. Quite possibly it is the universal change that all beings want to make. On a wild theory, why did God make the world? Just because he wanted to? According to the Bible he made it, saw it, and said it was 'good'. So He kept adding to the world and kept finding it to be 'good'. Better than the original nothingness that was there? Apparently. So, would it be unreligious (or wrong) to say that God made the world because He wanted to better the nothingness? Which means that God was not satisfied with the nothingness, and therefore if there had been anyone to complain to right then, He probably would have. And because God is all things, when he changed the nothingness He therefore changed himself, making the original problem of nothingness not a problem. So as humans (or creatures of God) do we follow his example of changing for the 'better'? And is that what it means to be religious? But of course we are not God and therefore when we change the world we don't change ourselves. Maybe the original problem is changed, but not us. However if changing the world solves our problems then why do we need to change ourselves to be religious? The answer would be that it is not always possible to change the world and in those cases we ought to refer to the quote: God, give me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the strength to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

And my reply:

I think most people are unhappy with life and think the reason for it is that they think life sucks and there is nothing they can do to fix it. The power in Wittgenstein’s thinking is the idea that how I see the world, what attitude I have towards it, is something I have control over – because it is my own thinking that I can change to improve things. This is certainly the same point that Saint Augustine makes in many of his works and Wittgenstein is just showing he understands Augustine to be right about this.

The whole point sounds simple but it is not. Teachers are even given training at college to help them understand what level of reflective thinking their students have reached so they can aim their teaching methods at that level: http://wsjamison.uaa.alaska.edu/reflect.htm

The initial realization of this does seem, as you say, to actually be depressing instead of empowering! Kierkegaard never seemed to get over this. Nietzsche acts like he gets over it but I think he merely fooled himself – but then he went crazy. The philosopher I am reading about now – rather feverishly since I just got the over due notice – I forgot I got it from the Loussac and not UAA! – was exactly like this in Budapest. He was a genius that understood this philosophical point and it depressed him. The author of the book points out similarities between Wittgenstein and him – Lukacs -- and wonders if they could have ever met in Vienna or elsewhere.  But I don’t think they would have had to have met in order for them both to so clearly reflect the philosophical issue of their day. I think it is a logical progression. I have outlined this in my little article here: http://wsjamison.uaa.alaska.edu/pmd.htm