Wittgenstein

I was really intrigued with our reading and discussion of Wittgenstein. He comes across really abrasive and controversial, but some of his radical ideas seem to ring true in their effort to shake up philosophy’s role in describing religion. So I went ahead and read some more about him online.
Though much of his work is extremely heady, to include the concepts that we discussed in class, what I really latch onto in his thinking is what many of his critics see as flawed. Wittgenstein upheld his belief that language is extremely limiting when it is used to describe things that are beyond the experience of human beings. He also maintains that there is a limit to the potential of empirical investigation.
To me, this is the meat of the discussion about the usefulness of “hermeneutics of contemplation”. As I have noted before, I consider myself an agnostic (though this class has pulled me in either direction at times). To describe what that means to me is to say that: I am doubtful that there is an omnipotent being out there that is pulling the cosmic strings, but I see that the ability of science to offer up a satisfying explanation of the meaning of the universe as finite.
Wittgenstein’s viewpoint that science may never be able to accomplish that feat is a belief that I have held for some time, and it was reassuring to find my humble belief echoed by a mind as talented as his. He may have taken his stance too far, and in doing so alienating much of the philosophical community, but I think that the controversy that he generated is an important part of his legacy. It is both a challenge and a statement to the thinkers that follow him.