The Ordinary, Wittgenstein vs.

Emerson
As we step by step come closer to the post-modernist way of thinking by authors
who are being introduced in the course, the admiration for extra-ordinary
subjects and romantic mindset starts to fade. With sciences and our
understanding of the day to day material world progressing, thinkers are suddenly
struck with the realization that the day to day material world is all we have. The
more unknowns get known to humankind, the less space for imagining a "perfect"
way of living. this grand transition results in brilliant minds like Emerson and
Wittgenstein starting to think about the ordinary, and how it's fundamental for
understanding and living the life we have.

Emerson was strictly against waiting for a grand life-changing experience like grief
or love to suddenly wake one up to the world, he found this way of approaching
life rather shallow and meaningless. as said by himself, "The only thing grief has
taught me, is to know how shallow it is." "So Mr Emerson", one might ask, "how
can we actually wake up to the world instead?" He suggests in response, the way
of the beat generation. seek life on the highway, not behind a desk. Personally,
I've been researching the beat generation for years, and I love the idea of it. there
is no way to understand and seek truth from an isolated room and books and
intellectual nonsense. you have to truly live your life in order to understand it. hit
the road, have weird conversations with strangers who live in totally different
worlds that you, hate, love, engage. We are in no way meant to study things that
we can experience to their fullest potential, and the ultimate truth is not hidden
in a dark library or a thought-provoking experience, it's in the normal, boring,
mundane day to day life.

Wittgenstein's way of thinking installs this very same idea in a very different
concept. He's talking about language, he's not interested in the perfect way of
living, he wants to determine a way to look at human interactions that actually
makes sense*. for him, language is like a game. the rules only make sense when
we're talking about the game itself and how to play it, and to discuss whether the
rules are true in a genuine framework is completely irrational. Like in chess, you
can talk about the best move you can make when confronting a certain situation,
but it's silly to ask if the pieces should REALLY be moved that way or if the
chessboard is symmetrical. words mean a certain thing because we use them a
certain way and not at all because they actually reflect the truth of a certain thing.
Therefore, like in the chess example, it's meaningless to ask if a word or a
sentence truly describes something or is closer to the essence of a subject. what
we can discuss is whether a word is a correct move in a language game. for
example, in a fight between two lovers, one might say "why won't you spend less
time hanging out with your friends and help me with house chores?" and the
other might reply"I work my soul off to earn money and you think I'm wasting
time!" the first one is playing the "I want to be loved and feel like I matter to you"
game, but the second spouse is playing "let's fight about who's actually working a
job" game. For Wittgenstein, this distance of language games is what causes all
the misunderstandings.

Obsession with the ordinary is where these two thinkers meet eye to eye.
Emerson says "forget about all your dumb deep revelations and live the
experience". Wittgenstein says"stop fighting about who's right and who's wrong
and understand that meaning comes from use" Meaning comes from use. Do you
want to be the best person in the world? USE the experiences. Do you want to
find the truth? truth is what you make through USE. Forget the razzle-dazzle, and
you'd be perfectly well-of.

Footnotes:

1-when talking about Wittgenstein, I'm speaking of his second phase and later
works.

2-I know I don't have many ordered references, I tried to deliver my

understanding from an original perspective rather than copy-pasting quotes.
 Freud, Woolf, and Art.
What is it that you really want?

We always look for our fantasies to satisfy or biology, That one simple phrase can
lead us to figure out the usage of art in modern civilization. art is pure fantasy,
the picture of an ideal world where emotions and thoughts can be expressed in
whatever way that seems more soothing and the artist can be the god of his own
world of unanswered desires. this is mainly how Freud views aesthetics, although
he believes that living through the pathway of creative work can cause a life of
pleasure. but he hates nothing as much as he hated illusions. "This aesthetic
attitude to the goal of life offers little protection against the threat of suffering,
but it can compensate for a great deal."

unlike many philosophers, beauty is nothing divine for him. " 'Beauty' and
'attraction' are originally attributes of the sexual object." altogether, for Freud art
can be a coping mechanism for suppressed desires, but a coping mechanism
nonetheless.

on the other hand, nothing can compare to the pure enchantment of art for
Woolf. As mentioned in her masterpiece, To the lighthouse, the moment of truth
and revelation comes not until Lily has finished her painting in a flame of
inspiration and beauty. for Woolf, beauty is all there is. man does not live long
enough to be a matter to a house ( as cleverly described in the second chapter,
Time passes), and no great revelation shall come. there is a hidden yet
spontaneous massage in the scene where Lily is painting Mrs Ramsay and not the
lighthouse. Woolf is telling us, the spectators, to look away from the chaotic
world all its loudness, and look to this beautiful mother and her son crawling in
her arms. Woolf doesn't care for politics or science, she cares about intimacy, and
love, and beauty.
more than anything in the novel, it's being reminded to us that Mrs Ramsay is
beautiful. I would like to go even further and say that she is Beauty. the ballad
that holds the world together. For it is not Mr Ramsay's books or the waves of the
ocean that causes the Ramsay family to get along on that dinner party, it's love
and beauty itself.

I believe that Mr Ramsay is Freud himself. Maybe Woolf didn't mean for such a
thing to happen, but it fits perfectly. After all, Freud might be right. maybe the
appreciation for beauty is nothing but sexual desire after all, and maybe art is
nothing but "palliative measure", but quoting Mrs Ramsay, why can't he, for once,
put away the truth and say something to lighten up the heart of his little boy so
maybe he wouldn't be so eager to put a knife in his stomach all the time?

the endless pursuit of truth and logic in a world full of uncertainties in not much
more reasonable that settling with the few things we can be sure of, flaming
matches in the dark. science in blind, way more blind than love has ever been.
Mrs Ramsay could never be sure if that table was real, but she could be sure of
her son's love, and she could be sure of the magic that spring puts of every leave,
and the true color of rose. which is something Mr Ramsay cold never understand,
as long as he kept thinking about weather it was real or not.
that's what aesthetics teaches us. that's what Mrs Ramsay teaches us. forget
about all the doubts you have about the meaning of life and the existence of god
and the reality of the world, enjoy the few things you have. taste the apple, smell
the fresh air, hug the people you love before it's too late. Mr Ramsay is
modernity, and speed, so drowned is his analysis and observations that he's
unable to see the bigger picture, unable to see his loving wife and family.
Freud is truly an Enlightenment thinker, and like many other Enlightenment
thinkers he is bound to logic. Woolf says throw away the logic, life has way more
to offer.
personally, as a person who has been fascinated with art for most of her life, I'd
have to agree with Woolf on that. even so a palliative measure can make a mortal
human much much happier than pure reason ever can. after all, Freud was wrong
about many things, and I can imagine if he had a chance to meet Mrs Ramsay,
he'd probably write a book called "beauty and it's guidance to perfection". but
who knows? I too am just a messed up egoistic human being driven by sex and
death.