There is a two-paragraph section in Culture and Value (notes from 1937) in which Wittgenstein writes on faith, reason, and the historical veracity of the Gospels. His purpose is evidently a rejection of the criteria of reason and historical verification in theological argument. The two paragraphs of this section are as follows:
The passage is a bit opaque. Nevertheless, here I disagree with Wittgenstein. First of all, the (admittedly controversial) material in Josephus reporting on a historical Jesus is conducive to belief; and this still holds even if I am missing Wittgenstein's point here; and regardless, too, if the material in Josephus is legitimate or not.
Indeed, the historical context--the politics on the ground in that period--calls us to the necessity of the theological understanding that Jesus represents.
Following this thread further still, the story of Jonah--which after all leads to many of the same conclusions as the Gospels--attends not belief or some sort of loving emotion, but rather a reasoned revelation of theology, of human nature, and of ethics. At the end of Jonah, moreover, it is not belief or even love that moves Jonah, but rather God's sense of humor and irony. Ah, and is it not incumbent upon us to ascribe that same humor and irony to Jonah, the author of the piece?
These are opening salvos, but I find that I am already bored of the section, which anyway is muddled and not very interesting; not really. So I'll close with two criticisms: First, Wittgenstein also neglects apophatic theology; second, his language is rather ruffled and lacking elegance: lacking elegance of thought, and lacking suitability of language, which certainly is a kind of elegance.
Wittgenstein is very good on language and conceptual confusion, but, in contrast, he is rather weak on theology. We need to go in search of a more capable and fluent writer. Like Nabokov, for instance. See HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment