John Searle on Ludwig Wittgenstein: Section 3

This subject confuses me. Is just about the ascetics and the layout of sentences. It seems like making a subject out of trivial stuff

Actually, the early Wittgenstein would not say sentences about beauty are nonsense in the pejorative sense of the term (logical positivists did). Rather, W. of Tractatus thought the truly important and profound issues in life had much to do with beauty, ethics, God. Problem was, he said, language is not capable of serving as a vehicle for the expression of these matters. Later on he broadened immensely his criteria for linguistic meaning. Contextual and pragmatic definitions allowed for this.

(cont'd) The word sublime also has different meanings. Searle (5:11) uses it in what seems like the Kantian sense of boundlessnes. Some poets have used it to speak of horror and delight combined. Others use it to indicate majesty and beauty. What do "sublime" Cathedrals, the "sublime" experience of fear and awe in nature, and a "sublime" symphony all share? Is there an essence or rather resemblances and differences?

I think Searle means to say that if we treat words as though they transcend contexts in which they are used (i.e. are sublime qua boundless), we get confused. W. might say we should look at ways in which, say, artists actually use "sublime" in cultural settings/ forms of life. We don't end up with a universal definition of "the sublime," but a sense of various possible uses of the term in light of resemblances and differences. Take "good" soldiers and "good" music. What do they share?

But Witt.'s language games can contain the sublime, no?

he said accord..

kewl dewdz