I can see how at least at some level what they are saying is similar. That is, both seem to agree that language cannot express absolute truth. However, Lao Tsu does seem to believe in an absolute truth, just one that cannot be expressed. Wittgenstein, from his linguistic perspective, views anything that cannot be expressed as non-existent. This is my problem with this view-just because something cannot be expressed (has no linguistic form) does not mean it does not exist.
To the second part of your statement, I think that language essentially provides what you describe: a way of organizing meaning, or of organizing information. The problem is, language actually has the tendency to distort our ability to perceive things correctly. Neitzche, for example, noted that language was primarily shaped by utilitarian and social concerns. That is, language serves primarily practical and social concerns-those concerns that are related to daily life. Language is not, and has never been, designed to represent truth objectively. That is why Lao Tsu, I think, emphasizes moving away from a linguistic understanding of existence.
I wouldn't claim that existence shapes existence. Rather, from a Taoist perspective, existence just IS. It's simply an inherent part of reality.
By the way, you are probably the only head-fi member I've heard who has really studied philosophy, I'm surprised. I am actually a philosophy major in college too.
Edited by Antony6555 - 6/1/10 at 12:11am
Originally Posted by Danneq
Well, actually (the younger) Wittgenstein, who's basic philosophical stance I see as being close to Lao Tsu, came to a similar conclusion as Lao Tsu in his Tractatus. Well, I have not studied Existentialism too much, just a bit in Philosophy and History of ideas classes about 10 years ago.
I would say that Wittgenstein differs from other language philosophers in that he sees how limited language is and draws the conclusion that it can only be used on tangible things. Matters such as absolute truth cannot be discussed as they are meaningless.
So I think it goes well with Lao Tsu.
I do not really understand how existence can shape existence. You need not clarify since this thread has run its course. I was talking from a human perspective and we need to understand existence to be able to handle it in some way. That existence shapes existence sounds to me like a very "zen" way of seeing things. More of an ideal than practice for people. It seems like what Lao Tsu were striving for, but the people around him were confused by the five colors and sounds and what else. I suggested that we have a way of handling existence and that is shaped by the "categories" in our mind. A sort of system for making the world easier to understand and handle. And that is where language comes into play...