What We Know
that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; Philippians 3:10 NASB
Know – The Austrian philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, never intended to change the course of modern philosophy and linguistics. He wrote only one book. Most of his later works were notes and scribbled thoughts that were later collected by his students and friends. He was an isolated man, an oddity—and a genius. He reshaped how we think about the relationship between language, truth and reality. Some of his remarks in the collection that came to be called On Certainty are extremely important. They correct that penchant of theologians (and other religiously minded people) of articulating what really can’t be spoken, as you will see. Consider these:[1]
But I did not get my picture of the world by satisfying myself of its correctness; nor do I have it because I am satisfied of its correctness. No: it is the inherited background against which I distinguish between true and false. (p. 15)
All testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place within a system. And this system is not a more or less arbitrary and doubtful point of departure for all our arguments: no, it belongs to the essence of what we call an argument. The system is not so much the point of departure, as the element in which arguments have their life. (p. 16)
If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either. (p. 17)
We do not learn the practice of making empirical judgments by learning rules: we are taught judgments and their connexion [sic] with other judgments. A totality of judgments is made plausible to us. (p. 21)
I act with complete certainty. But this certainty is my own. (p. 25)
What I know, I believe. (p. 25)
Sure evidence is what we accept as sure, it is evidence that we go on in acting surely, acting without any doubt. What we call “a mistake” plays a quite special part in our language games, and so too does what we regard as certain evidence. (p. 27)
Giving grounds, however, justifying the evidence, comes to an end;–but the end is not certain propositions’ striking us immediately as true, i.e. it is not a kind of seeing on our part; it is our acting, which lies at the bottom of the language-game. (p. 28)
But it isn’t that the situation is like this: We just can’t investigate everything, and for that reason we are forced to rest content with assumption. If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put. (p. 44)
Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic. (p. 81)
Try applying a few of these observations to your efforts at convincing others of the Hebraic view of Scripture (or perhaps you need to have this discussion with yourself). Don’t you notice that the argument comes to an end? That one or the other of you ends up a heretic? That evidence defaults to the way we live? That not being absolutely sure seems to be a constant human condition? That what I have learned along the way often prevents me from entertaining any other way of looking at the same material?
Is Paul actually presenting an argument about his trust in the Messiah? Is he expressing the proof for a resurrection? Or is he uttering a declaration of personal experience anchored in his beliefs about an event that he did not witness? Is gnonai (from ginosko—to know) simply a matter of evidence independent of context, or is Paul saying something about his contextual expectations about the Messiah?
Ah, did all of this seem too academic? Well, whether you realize it or not, all of these ideas play an enormous role in your everyday life. It’s just that most of the time we don’t bother to think about them. They assert their influence covertly, and as a result, make us victims of what we never thought about.
Wouldn’t you like to be free of epistemological drift?
Topical Index: Wittgenstein, know, evidence, language game, ginosko, Philippians 3:10
[1] All citations are from Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Row (1969)
I haven’t thought about this material cited since the mid 70’s when I read it amongst dozens of other required readings in my Philosophy courses. I came out of those years with a different understanding of the language game than the point of Today’s word and that was in two forms; One, the language game played by those who wrote this type of material was one that in itself required many hours of study (and thus kept the self declared position of ‘higher’ understanding simply by the inability of most to understand the language) and two, little of it led to an understanding of The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Today I try not to leave behind the idea that there is a sufficiency in the elementary level of understanding in conceptual conclusions. I find the simplicity of life in ‘the garden’ to have been sufficient in a simple concept; “Do what God has already told us to do’ (“So the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today. It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the Lord our God, just as He commanded us”.)
Yes, I do find the Hebraic language and culture as set in the times that God’s Word was first received to be an exciting insight into God’s intended relationship with his creation and I have been blessed to have had that put before me through men such as you Skip. But it does not mean I find it necessary to entertain every utterance as a plausibility. That is what the ‘Serpent’ desired us to consider. And “That what I have learned along the way often prevents me from entertaining any other way of looking at the same material(?)” can be a quagmire in that it presents the ultimate conclusion; that there is no ‘end’ to the language game.
If knowledge is the goal, then the person or group that presents the most compelling ‘evidence’ for the intellect ‘wins’. If my intellect can squash your intellect then I ‘win’. The Greeks gave us a black and white world and the Enlightenment gave us the world of the supposedly perfect mind, and, voila! we were then set up for what I am convinced is the current game being played on this planet, which is the dialectic. We are handed two parties in politics to polarize us; two positions in theology (trinity/monotheism, grace/works, etc.) and off we go to the races. The occult beckons us who need ‘extra’ knowledge before we can have ‘correct’ relationship, for when we worship the intellect, we are equally vulnerable to the insecurity that the knowledge of the finiteness of the mind then creates.
We were created and pronounced “good, very good”. I do not need to either doubt my mind or to worship it. I need to submit it to the refiner’s fire (sanctification), along with the rest of me, for that is my reasonable service. At that point, I have the mind of Christ to send it all through, and none of the above applies except as a fleshly footnote. I am out of the game, so help me YHVH.
P.S. Mel, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I have seen intellect as a handicap for a good while now. In my experience, knowledge got me not one whit closer. It was when my mind fogged over, and I could not retain nouns (a peculiarity of brain fog, where you cannot remember people’s names, or other nouns, either), that I laid on the couch and read my Bible all day. It was when my mind was at its poorest that the Holy Spirit was free enough to impress me with the truth. I am no longer fascinated with my mind. His is where it is at for me. Halleluah!
Sorry, RIchard, I was experiencing brain fog and thought you were, somehow, Mel!
Mel is fine to me also Laurita! Rick is what my friends call me. Richard is what my mom called me when I was in trouble. My wife calls me Sweety but she never calls me that when I am in trouble 🙂
In other lectures (on Ezer Kenegdo), Skip teaches of the self realization/self identity of Adam’s ‘Ish’/’Isha’ correlation. I think this is a leader to our relationship with God.
I tend to think that without recognizing that my relationship with God is part and parcel to knowing who I am, I will seek out other sources of determination to satisfy that quest of self realization/self identity.
Adam’s ‘I am because she is’ (a simplified equation) and the connected ‘free will’ submission was a necessity for the ‘tree of knowledge…’ setting to be offered. As ‘one’ the ish and the isha listened to the ‘philosophical’ offerings of the ‘Serpent’ and a new identity outside of God was formed.
Or maybe it’s just the Southern Baptist upbringing in me coming out 🙂
There’s a common saying among people of faith:
“I know that I know that I know”
Could it be that “something” precedes knowledge?
“For wisdom will enter your heart
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.” Prov. 2:10
Richard
I found more meaning in life when I tried to plant seeds. Everything except what I planted came up. Now I just remove the excess excessively and you will not believe how it grows back without be nurtured.
What has this to do with words and communication… Everything as it is only when we strip what is to the essential truth or reality that we find meaning in it to grow from it.
Skip interesting excerpts you got me wanting to read more on the works referenced.
The other reality is the more we learn the less we know… So the life secret is work from what little knowledge you have and you will achieve more than others who continue seeking knowledge… Especially when we try to serve God.
Yes, it did seem rather academic. However, I think it is due more to lack of understanding than apathy plus most people just don’t have time to consider these things even if they aren’t the brightest stars in the room.
I have been reading the TWs’ these last few days and have gone back and looked at a few older ones. I wanted to share some thoughts about carrying each others burdens. I’ve seen a few comments on this website and I have heard it said by quite a few people over the years about how useless counseling is be it secular or religious. First if one seeks counseling in order to be “fixed” then then your goal is misguided. And if you happen to encounter a therapist who wants to fix you by telling you what to do, you have encountered a bad therapist and you need to go elsewhere. I would say that is dangerous stuff and there are therapists like that. Besides who does what someone else tells them to do unless they really want to do it.
But I think the biggest reason counseling doesn’t work for people is because they don’t want to look at the real problem(s). They march all the way around it. It is hard to open up and be vulnerable. It is true that sometimes you may not even know exactly what the problem is. Therapy is not really about fixing things. Or someone telling you what to do. It is to get you to become aware of what is driving you. It is about exploring those things which are causing you problems. And to help one change behaviors which are not helpful but destructive. Life is struggle hopefully with some happiness thrown in along the way. Finding a good therapist saved my life. To me that is evidence that God truly does meet us where we are.
And carrying each others burdens by looking to God is undoubtedly the best way. I bought and listened to one of your recent studies. It didn’t seem that different to me than going to a local bible study group in that it seemed somewhat superficial. There was no “real” sharing. Maybe because it was being recorded. I heard some talk about other peoples’ problems. What their problems were. I found that rather mundane. It would seem to me if you are going to invest your time in that way there would be some real depth to it. The discussion of the struggle between the yetzer hara and the yetzer hatov is much appreciated. However, there was a fine line as well in the subject matter as I could see how those less sure of their walk with YHVH could fall back into legalism and self-condemnation. And those are both ugly things. It seems pointless to be in community in that way if there is not real sharing.
I like your thoughts about real therapy. It is about becoming aware of ourselves. We could say the same thing about real Bible study, couldn’t we? It is about becoming aware of how much we have adopted from our backgrounds and culture rather than discovering for ourselves.
Now a word about your disappointment with the recording you purchased. Since I don’t know which one it was, I will have to make a general comment. Most of my lectures are to very mixed audiences, that is, a wide variety of people who come with a wide variety of prior studies and experiences. That means the lectures must be wide enough to offer some insight to all who attend. In those settings I find that people are resistant to deep self-disclosure. After all, these are not therapy groups. Where in-depth sharing happens it is usually NOT recorded, for obvious reasons. So although I am sorry you felt is was no better than a usual Bible study, please keep in mind that the lecture you listened to was probably not intended to do more than open the way for further investigation, study and passion for the Word.
I appreciate the response. Much of what you say I am in agreement with. That is those things I think I am understanding. Like the discussion of the yetzer hara and original sin. I don’t believe in original sin. So yes much of that is meaningful to me. And it seems to me you are quite passionate about your beliefs around the trinity. And honestly I still find myself at a loss.
This was not a lecture. I have listened to several of your lectures. This was a study. And it was to my understanding primarily concerned with the yetzer hara and hetzer hatov. And my point was that unless we apply this to ourselves, it seems rather pointless. It is not a criticism per se. Just saying that I don’t know if one learns very much if they are looking outward at other people when discussing the yetzer hara and hatov. A study like this I think would be beneficial where people were willing to share their struggles. And part of that study was considering the little ways one gives in to the yetzer hara without being aware of it.
Thanks.
What?.. or “Who?” – that I may know Him.. sounds to me like not only a Person, but a personal Savior..
(May I know Him too?)