Q&A: Wittgenstein and Faith
Wittgenstein and Faith
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve seen your references to Wittgenstein, and I have a hard time understanding how one can both hold by Wittgenstein and accept his conclusions about language, and still speak about God at all—let alone go in your direction and try to prove His existence.
For if I am trapped within a language that cannot say anything beyond what can be signified (the early Wittgenstein), then as he explicitly says, every metaphysical statement is meaningless; logical positivism follows from this almost inevitably. The ability to speak about anything beyond is denied, and even any attempt to move toward a “mystical consciousness” loses its meaning, because there is no such thing as consciousness without language, or a wordless experience.
And if I am trapped within a language whose meaning lies in the way I use it (the later Wittgenstein), then everything loses its meaning, because language can only help me communicate and create culture, but cannot say anything real about a reality beyond thought, which itself is structured by the language I learned to speak—let alone speak about God and knowledge of Him.
But it may very well be that I haven’t understood correctly, and therefore I would be happy to hear your answer.
Thank you very much.
Answer
I didn’t understand your logic. I won’t get into the fact that Wittgenstein—especially the later Wittgenstein—certainly does allow speaking about God. But where did you get the strange idea that if I refer to Wittgenstein, that means I adopt his entire doctrine, or even some fragment of it?
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi Michi, as a side question to the topic, I’d be glad to hear whether in your opinion there is any benefit in studying his thought, and if so, what it is.
I heard criticism of his thought (especially from Joseph Agassi), and that lowered my estimation of him quite a bit…
(I was going to ask this as a new question on the site, but since I saw that Wittgenstein had been brought up, I asked it here. If it’s more convenient for me to post it as a new question, I’ll open one.)
Roi,
Wittgenstein should be interpreted on his own terms. There is nothing special about speaking of God. In his view everything is language games, and therefore that is how his references to God should also be interpreted. That’s all.
Anonymous,
In my view there is great value in it even if one disagrees. His arguments and analyses sharpen important points. Even when you disagree, it is worth knowing what it is that you disagree with, and why.
Hello Rabbi. It could be that my wording was confusing. I wasn’t claiming that you have to accept his entire doctrine; I was only saying that I myself do not understand how, according to Wittgenstein, one can speak about God or argue for His existence. When I said that I had seen your references to him, I only meant to clarify that I was turning to you because I got the impression that you are well versed in his method, not that I inferred from this that you are one of his followers. Suppose we do go with his approach: all the place that Wittgenstein makes for God and religion in his later thought is, as I understand it, a religious feeling that cannot be formulated or turned into a factual claim, and those are the kinds of beliefs you don’t see as having much substance. I would just be glad for your answer (according to your understanding): what kind of opening to faith does the later Wittgenstein create? If it is impossible to speak about metaphysics and discuss it, then your approach is ruled out; and any such religious feeling is also devoid of substance without language, since every experience requires language, and from that it follows that the feeling itself too is nothing but a construction. (Again, I’m not sufficiently expert and I don’t understand enough. I’d just be glad if you could explain it to me, since I trust your understanding in these areas. If every experience whatsoever requires language, then what is the point of talking about what is outside language? It is meaningless.)