7 knowing when to stop
From The Glass House Philosopher 24th November 2004:
...[T]he clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear.
The real discovery is the one that makes me capable of stopping doing philosophy when I want to. — The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring itself in question.
Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations I/133
In the context, Wittgenstein is talking about his own radical approach to philosophy as 'therapy'. By the skilful use of examples to 'cure' us of our tendency to misconstrue the logic our language, the philosophical therapist dissolves the seemingly insoluble problems which we were stuck on. For the first time, we see clearly. What seemed to be a problem was not really a problem at all, just a misunderstanding.
I never bought this. Perhaps because I have never been so lucky to go through the experience of seeing the problem simply evaporate away.
One philosophical problem which seems destined to be my lifetime companion is the problem of the subjective and objective standpoints. Like Wittgenstein, I believed (still believe) in the ideal of 'complete clarity'. My solution — then — was to set one's sights lower. All that is required, I argued, is a complete description of reality which leaves nothing out:
The only alternative for someone who takes the goal of metaphysics seriously — who wishes to account for the whole of reality and not just a part of it — is to take the incommunicable sense of my own unique existence as a sense of something real, even if that is the only thing that can be said about it.
Naive Metaphysics Ch 7 Reality of the subjective standpoint, p. 73
Whereas Wittgenstein's response to the challenge of complete clarity is to give a more modest appraisal of the philosopher as therapist, my modest aim is to 'give an account' in the sense in which an accountant might draw up a profit and loss sheet. No explanations, no predictions, just a complete record which hides nothing. In other words, the aim of metaphysics is simply to describe, to note all there is. To leave nothing hidden.
'Even if that is the only thing that can be said about it.' — How ironic, that this should be presented as an alternative to remaining silent about 'what cannot be said', when, in fact, that is exactly what I am doing!
No, the problem of the subjective and objective standpoints was not completely solved. It was not solved, period. My modest achievement was merely to note it down, point it out, give it a name. 'See, look! What do you make of this?' This? what? What 'this'?...
But I learned to stop.
Not in the way that Hume stopped — when he famously decided to go off and play a game of backgammon (after struggling unsuccessfully to account for the 'continued and distinct existence' of the objects of perception, Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part IV, Ch 2). Hume saw his science of human nature as a way to overcome traditional philosophy and the sceptical problems which it brings in its wake. The objects of perception are real because it is human nature to take them to be real. That, not any mere philosophical theory, is the ultimate criterion of reality.
I don't buy that either. With his philosopher's hat on, Hume calls the objects of our everyday world, 'fictions'. That means they are merely apparent, not real. We were supposed to be giving an account of reality! What is real, for Hume, are 'ideas and impressions'. — Problem unsolved.
What would be 'complete clarity' for me then? I don't know. I don't know because I can't see beyond the this, beyond the unsayable thing that I do know.
When you're stuck, held fast, knowing you cannot go forward, cannot go back, then what you have to learn is to lie still. Don't struggle. Wait. Maybe rescue will come. An idea, a move, the one possibility you hadn't attended to. These can only be found by waiting, listening, for the whisper which you were too busy tugging at your chains to hear.
(Last time, I suggested that 'knowing when to stop' meant 'knowing when enough is enough', knowing when there is no need to go on, to analyse more. Not so much learning when to stop as knowing when to move on, knowing when you've said enough. That's a different case from what I'm talking about here, when you're simply baffled, stuck for anything to say.)
— What has brought this on?
Yesterday, I found myself giving advice to a student who seemed like a younger version of myself:
My efforts were almost like balancing a stick on my palms, how long will it stay I never know? but I will consider my self dead the day stick loses its balance...
Everything looks as if I am making a deep dive into the ocean sinking in thousands of feet into danger. All that will be worth it if I get a pearl from the deep, but uncertainty keeps haunting my mind.
I wrote back:
I have been to the place which you describe, where the only direction seems to be down to the depths. But I learned — in good time — that my philosophy improved when I allowed myself to come up for air.
That's it. No deep mystery. Just a piece of practical advice. Learn to take some time off philosophy. When you return, to be sure, you will find yourself exactly where you were before, facing the same unsolved problems, the same unanswered questions. You won't have moved on. There's no magic spell that will help you. But you will be refreshed, ready to wait patiently, quietly for the whisper or clue which will lead you on to the next stage.