by Sven Nilsen, 2023
Prior to the development of McCarthy’s conceptualisation of Artificial Intelligence, the cultural dimensions of thoughts about the relationship between intelligence and existence were narrow. It is from this perspective I wish to interpret the philosophies of Hegel and Wittgenstein. These two men were peeking into the problematic nature of thought.
As most philosophers, Hegel based his positions on self-centrism, where the universal nature of being is considered a manifestation of the central thesis of one’s own making. In this respect I prefer Wittgenstein’s lack of self-centrism. However, I do not claim that Hegel failed at his project. Hegel did succeed in my view, but not in the sense he might have preferred to succeed.
I believe Hegel grasped a perspective of existence that is a philosophical analogue of food. Everybody knows how important food is for human existence, yet we do not view food as an overarching identity of human being. This contradiction fits well inside the dialectical ideas of Hegel. I do not see myself as Hegelian, but more of a Wittgensteinean. Yet, Hegel’s ideas of being are like “food for thought” to me. Once grasped, there is an abundance of applications and situations where Hegel’s philosophy becomes relevant, although often slightly beyond the boundary of normal human thought.
As as Wittgensteinean, I think about what Wittgenstein was trying to do, instead of interpreting his arguments literally as positions worth considering. I believe that Wittgenstein had a glimpse of the difficulties in understanding language similar to what McCarthy would gradually discover about Artificial Intelligence over time. So, in Wittgenstein’s time, it was too early to form a mature philosophical position. Wittgenstein died before he could complete his project.
Today, it still uncertain whether Wittgenstein’s project can ever be completed. The basic idea is “philosophy in crisis”. As such, it is not about philosophy lacking theoretical direction. There is always need to make corrections of theoretical direction if one ever wants to finalise some project. However, Wittgenstein was not thinking about philosophical problems from a theoretical perspective. He tried to look at language from a slightly widened dimensional standpoint. What he found was a pattern of ideas that can be intuitively understood when there is a practical crisis happening: People rush in to act in time. This perspective of crisis became a crisis of philosophy. The problem is not a crisis in existing philosophy, but a creative new philosophy where language as used in crisis takes the center stage. Philosophy as a discipline had to confront its evidential lack of crisis. Wittgenstein described this situation as “philosophy is when language goes on holiday”. He was quick to dismiss philosophy as a whole. However, in hindsight I find it more productive to look at Wittgenstein’s research notes, organised by Bergen University, to figure out what Wittgenstein was trying to accomplish, instead of his official arguments. When Wittgenstein is no longer the center of attention, he manages to get his existential crisis of the difference between language and logic under control.
If we go back to Hegel, we can see the dialectics of Wittgenstein’s philosophy playing out through his life. The crisis is perpetual, a powerful motive for Wittgenstein to carry on. What Wittgenstein is lacking, is the mundane ideas of Hegel to keep his direction steady. Hegel’s ideas once again become essential to those trying to make progress in Wittgenstein’s direction. So, I view myself oscillating a bit between these two philosophies. Wittgenstein’s ideas are like a fire, powerful but also potentially dangerously uncontrollable, where Hegel’s ideas are like water, weighty but when there is too much of it, you might drown in its complexity.