"What inclines even me to believe in Christ's resurrection? I play as it were with the thought...

>"What inclines even me to believe in Christ's resurrection? I play as it were with the thought.–If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like every human being. He is dead & decomposed. In that case he is a teacher, like any other & can no longer help; & we are once more orphaned & alone. And have to make do with wisdom & speculation. It is as though we are in a hell, where we can only dream & are shut out from heaven, roofed in as it were. But if I am to be REALLY redeemed,– I need certainty–not wisdom, dreams, speculation–and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what my heart, my soul, needs, not my speculative intellect. For my soul, with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, must be redeemed, not my abstract mind. Perhaps one may say: Only love can believe the Resurrection. Or: it is love that believes the Resurrection"

What did he mean by this?

Attached: 35._Portrait_of_Wittgenstein.jpg (405x563, 27K)

He's trying to communicate that he didn't have a formal education in philosophy.

"muh feels"

You can't know God using reason and logic.

How original

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silen- oh wait

this, it's like so mysterious bro
just believe in it
it is actually good that it makes no sense because that means it's real

If I remember right, he wrote this around the time he published the Tractatus, right?
If so, the last part of the Tractatus, the 6s, gets into this a bit.
His entire account of language in his early authorship rests on the idea that we can only speak sensibly about things that are concrete and physical, occurring within the limits of logical space. His idea of picturing, which includes language, requires whatever is pictured and the picture itself rest under an internal relation within logic.
When he says "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", he's referring to the impossibility of language to refer to certain pieces of reality. The easiest things here are things that cannot be said but can still be clearly shown - things like the general structure and form of logical and all the things it implies in order for language and our means of thinking to exist at all.
What's harder to even conceptualize is the transcendental mystical he mentions towards the end of the Tractatus. Ethics and Aesthetics are the truths that are held in the mystic, and Wittgenstein's Tolstoyan version of Christianity would also fit somewhere in here.

I haven't read the Investigations all the way through yet, but I know enough about his early life that I'm pretty confident in that explanation. I don't know if the interpretation would change in light of his later works (although I'm pretty sure it would), and I'm not even sure if he'd say something like your quote in the OP in his later life.

>as it were

>as i am benumbed to all passion, so must everyone else be

>I believe in mumbled hoodoo, so must everyone else

you all just gave me horrible visions of myself in high school. don't appreciate it desu.

cringe post, my friend

>cringe
you just gave me horrible visions of myself in high school. don't appreciate it desu.

>you all just gave me horrible visions of myself in high school. don't appreciate it desu.
you just gave me horrible visions of myself in high school. don't appreciate it desu.

"idk"

Jewish fuckery

/thread

oh waw, look at you surpassing us peasants with your great philosophical insights labeling ppl to your former self to indicate your matureness , being in a mind set and changing over time doesn't mean shit , i have no proof of your current intellectual believes, so you can be a cretin for all i know.
Go outside and ride a bike or something.

>implying those comments needed any kind of serious refutation to be seen as garbage
calm down