TRACTATUS LOGICO- THEOLOGICUS
3rd revised editionISBN 3-932829-80-8ISSN 1436-0292Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft(Culture and Science Publ.)Dr. Thomas SchirrmacherTRACTATUS LOGICO - THEOLOGICUSVKW Theologisches Lehr- und Studienmaterial 11Paul D. Feinberg,Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology,Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IllinoisMONTGOMERY“John Warwick Montgomery is one of the most important apologists for biblical Christianity in our time. This is hismagnum opus. In it he refutes pluralism (the view that all religions are just different ways to God and none is asuperior way of salvation) and postmodernism (the view that there is no discoverable truth that is both universaland absolute); he then sets out the evidence validating Christianity’s truth claim. Do not go into battle withoutreading this book.”JOHN WARWICK“The name of John Warwick Montgomery deserves to be mentioned alongside of C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaefferas one of the 20th century’s most articulate defenders of historic Christianity. Written in the style of the earlyWittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Theologicus is vintage Montgomery. It brings together and updates several decadesof his thought, as it provides a clear, articulate defense of the truth of Christianity, the existence of God, theinerrancy of Holy Scripture, and the fundamental importance of Christian revelation for addressing the humancondition. I know of no other book like it, and given the renewed focus on religion in these troubled yet pluralistictimes, Tractatus Logico-Theologicus is must reading for anyone who wants to know how to choose a religionintelligently.”J. P. Moreland,Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, La Mirada, CaliforniaVKWProfessor Montgomery, a UK and US citizen, resides in England and in France. He is the author and editor of more thanfifty books in five languages (for information about his other publications, see http://www.ciltpp.com). Biographicalarticles on him appear in Who‘s Who in America, Who‘s Who in France, the European Biographical Directory, ContemporaryAuthors, and Who‘s Who in the World.VKW Theologisches Lehr- und Studienmaterial 11Professor Montgomery, while a student at Cornell University, had contact with Norman Malcolm, disciple and closefriend of Wittgenstein, and cut his teeth in formal logic under the instruction of Max Black, allegedly one of the very fewto have understood on first reading Russell and Whitehead‘s argumentation in their Principia Mathematica. Montgomery‘suniversity teaching career in history, law, literature, and theology, combined with that philosophical background, led tothe production of the present work, which offers a comprehensive apologetic for classical Christianity.Consisting of over 1,800 propositions in logical sequence, Montgomery‘s Tractatus is accompanied by detailedscripture, name, and subject indexes. The coverage is remarkable, embracing logic, literature, history, myth, science,philosophy, jurisprudence, political theory, and theology – interspersed throughout with the wit and rapier thrusts of abarrister at home in adversarial contexts.Wittgenstein‘s Tractatus, having demonstrated the limits of any non-transcendental attempt to understand theworld, ended with the proposition, “Of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.” Montgomery, after settingforth in depth the overwhelming case for the very transcendental revelation for which Wittgenstein longed but neverfound, concludes: “Whereof one can speak, thereof one must not be silent.”The Tractatus Logico-Theologicus purports to break new ground apologetically, as did the Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus epistemologically. It should be of particular interest to philosophers of religion, theologians, pastors,historians of ideas, and to everyone seeking solid answers for the ultimate questions which plague all of us at one timeor another, especially during what St John of the Cross labeled “the dark night of the soul.”TRACTATUSLOGICOTHEOLOGICUSJohn Warwick Montgomery
John Warwick MontgomeryTRACTATUSLOGICO-THEOLOGICUS
Christliche Philosophie heuteChristian Philosophy TodayQuomodo Philosophia Christianorum Hodie EstimaturBand 1Band 1John Warwick MontgomeryTractatus Logico-TheologicusBand 2John W. MontgomeryHat die Weltgeschichte einen Sinn?Geschichtsphilosophien auf dem PrüfstandBand 3John W. MontgomeryJésus: La raison rejoint l'historieBand 4Horst Waldemar BeckMarken dieses Äons: Wissenschaftskritische und theologische DiagnosenBand 5Ross CliffordJohn Warwick Montgomery’s Legal ApologeticTheologisches Lehr- und Studienmaterial(Martin Bucer Seminar)Band 11im Auftrag des Martin Bucer Seminarsherausgegeben vonDr. Thomas Schirrmacher
John Warwick MontgomeryTRACTATUSLOGICO-THEOLOGICUSJohn Warwick MontgomeryA.B. with Distinction in Philosophy, Cornell UniversityB.L.S., M.A., University of California at BerkeleyB.D., S.T.M., Wittenberg UniversityM.Phil. in Law, University of Essex, EnglandLL.M., LL.D., Cardiff University, WalesPh.D., University of ChicagoTh.D., University of Strasbourg, FranceDr. (h.c.), Institute for Religion and Law, Moscow, RussiaChristian Philosophy Today 1Theologisches Lehr- und Studienmaterial 11Verlag für Kultur und WissenschaftCulture and Science Publ.Bonn 2005
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP - EinheitsaufnahmeBibliografische Information der Deutschen BibliothekDie Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der DeutschenNationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet überhttp://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche BibliothekDie Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the DeutscheNationalbibliografie;detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet athttp://dnb.ddb.de. 2005 by Prof. Dr Dr Dr John Warwick Montgomery,2, rue de Rome67000 StrasbourgFrancee-mail: 106612.1066@CompuServe.com1. Aufl. 2002, 2. überarb. Aufl. 2003, 3. überarb. Aufl. 20051st edition 2002, 2nd revised edition 2003, 3rd revised edition 2005ISBN 3-938116-03-XISSN 1436-0292(Theologisches Lehr- und Studienmaterial)Printed in GermanySatz: Ron KubschUmschlaggestaltung und Gesamtherstellung:BoD Beese Druck, Friedensallee 76, 22765 HamburgVerlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft(Culture and Science Publ.)Friedrichstr. 38, 53111 BonnFax uslieferung:Hänssler Verlag71087 Holzgerlingen, Tel. 07031/7414-177 Fax -119www.haenssler.de/info@haenssler.de
ForA “ Fellowship of the Ring”—Andreae’s Civitas ChristianaHarold O. J. BrownRoss CliffordHoward HoffmanWill MooreCraig PartonGeorge PoulosRod RosenbladtAlex Dos SantosJeff SchwarzGene Edward VeithGraham WalkerTodd WilkenAnd Its Members Already in the Western IslesHerman EckelmannWalter MartinRobert Preus
INTRODUCTIONOf the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein wrote: “Perhapsthis book will be understood only by someone who has himself already hadthe thoughts that are expressed in it—or at least similar thoughts.—So it isnot a textbook.” The same may be said of the present work.Critics will attack this Tractatus on a number of grounds. The religiousliberals, the presuppositionalists, and the pietists will dismiss it as a workof rationalism. Theological conservatives will say that Wittgenstein waslittle more than a misguided mystic and unworthy of offering methodological insights in the religious area. Many in the philosophical communitywill say that a work such as this shows no recognition of the replacementof Wittgenstein I by Wittgenstein II—the Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations, who allegedly gave up all interest in verification for thesake of linguistic analysis and the substitution of puzzles for genuine philosophical problems.Since the present work is only structurally modeled on the TractatusLogico-Philosophicus, much of this criticism will be beside the point. Butwe note en passant that Wittgenstein himself wanted his Philosophical Investigations, if published, to appear bound together with his Tractatus:surely indicating that he did not intend his language games to float free ofall relationship with the world, much less of verification. G. A. Smith hasquite properly shown that Wittgenstein’s later philosophy of language creates legitimate scepticism concerning “the presumption that rational, logical thinking is always or ultimately a deductive mental process. But thisis not to cast doubt on the possibility of rational, logical thinking.”1And tothose in philosophy and in religion who regard verification as unimportant,we point out the obvious: either they think that all mutually contradictorypositions are somehow true; or they are unconcerned with the effects ofmetaphysical error on individual and societal life. One would think that theevents of 11 September 2001 would have put paid to such indifferentism.The author, though an undergraduate majoring in philosophy and theclassics at Cornell University during the time Wittgenstein visited Norman1Gene Anne Smith, “Wittgenstein and the Sceptical Fallacy,” 3/2 Canadian J. of Law andJurisprudence 155 at 179-80 (July 1990); cf. C. B. Daly, “New Light on Wittgenstein,” 10 Philosophical Studies 5-49 (1960).7
Malcolm, never had the privilege of meeting Wittgenstein. There was contact with Malcolm, who perhaps understood Wittgenstein better than anyother2; and I cut my teeth in formal logic under the instruction of MaxBlack, who allegedly was one of the very few to have understood on firstreading Russell and Whitehead’s argumentation in their Principia Mathematica. But my own studies focused on philosophy of religion and mychief mentor was Edwin A. Burtt, author of The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. After Cornell, I pursued graduate studies in fieldsother than philosophy, having already come to appreciate that though traditional philosophy could eloquently articulate the problems, it was incapable of supplying the solutions so desperately needed by a fallen race. MyTractatus, whose writing literally spans some thirty-five years, is designedto combine a serious look at those problems with the only ultimately verifiable and satisfying solution.It should not be inappropriate, therefore, to commandeer the final paragraph of Wittgenstein’s Preface to his Tractatus—with the change of a single word: “. . . the truth of the thoughts that are here set forth seems to meunassailable and definitive. I therefore believe myself to have found, on allessential points, the final solution of the problems. And if I am not mistaken in this belief, then the . . . thing in which the value of this work consists is that it shows how much is achieved when these problems aresolved.”London, EnglandJ. W. M.Easter Day, A.D. 20022“In 1949, when Wittgenstein visited Malcolm at Cornell and sat in on one of his seminars, astudent asked who the old guy was at the back—‘impersonating Malcolm’” (David Edmondsand John Eidinow, Wittgenstein’s Poker [London: Faber and Faber, 2001], p. 33; cf. pp. 202,263).8
Often as we walked together he would stop and exclaim “Oh, my God!,” looking at me almostpiteously, as if imploring a divine intervention in human events.--Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, p. 32.* * *If you can accept the miracle that God became man,then all of these difficulties are as nothing. . . . What inclineseven me to believe in Christ’s Resurrection? It is asthough I play with the thought.—If he did not risefrom the dead, then he decomposed in the grave likeany other man. He is dead and decomposed. In that casehe is a teacher like any other and can no longer help;and once more we are orphaned and alone. And we mustcontent ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We areas it were in a hell, where we can only dream, and areas it were cut off from heaven by a roof. But if I amto be really saved—then I need certainty—not wisdom,dreams, speculation—and this certainty is faith. Andfaith is faith in what my heart, my soul needs, not myspeculative intelligence. For it is my soul, with itspassions, as it were with its flesh and blood, thatmust be saved, not my abstract mind.--Ludwig Wittgenstein, cited in Wittgenstein:A Religious Point of View?, ed. Norman Malcolm, pp. 13, 17.* * *Il y a assez de lumière pour ceux qui ne désirent que de voir, et assez d’obscurité pour ceux qui ontune disposition contraire.--Pascal, Pensées, No. 430.* * *Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen.--Wittgenstein, Preface to the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.9
10
TABLE OF MAJOR PROPOSITIONS1234567The characteristic most fully shared by thereligions of the world is their incompatibilitywith each other.13To determine which religious position, if any,is worthy of credence requires serious attentionto Pilate’s question: What is truth?23Historical, jurisprudential, and scientificstandards of evidence offer the touchstonefor resolving the religious predicament byestablishing the truth claims of Christianproclamation.65The historical validation of the Christian faithyields an inerrant, perspicuous andunivocal written revelation.128The perennial dilemma of man (corporateand personal) as to the meaning of existencefinds its resolution in Christian revelation.158The Christian revelation satisfies thedeepest general and particular longingsof the human heart.183Whereof one can speak,thereof one must not be silent.19811
12
TRACTATUS LOGICO-THEOLOGICUSTRACTATUSLOGICO-THEOLOGICUS1*The characteristic most fully shared by the religions ofthe world is their incompatibility with each other.1.01This fundamental incompatibility is at root logical, not sociological.1.011Indeed, sociological conflict between two religious positionscommonly rests in the logical incompatibility of their respective beliefs.Logical incompatibility among religions applies no less to religions of the present than to religions of the past, and no less to“higher” than to “lower” religions.“There is in fact no subject upon which so much difference ofopinion exists, not only among the unlearned but also amongeducated men; and the views entertained are so various and sodiscrepant, that, while it is no doubt a possible alternative thatnone of them is true, it is certainly impossible that more thanone should be so” (Cicero, De natura deorum).1.021.031.1The religious cacophony sounds to many ears like a harmonyfor two understandable, but nonetheless inadequate, reasons:1.11Objectively, many students of the world’s religions (e.g., MaxMüller, Joseph Campbell) have noted the similarities in ceremonial practice among different faiths, e.g., the widespreademployment of animal sacrifices; or the institution of monasticism and the use of rosaries in both Eastern religions and Christianity.* As in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, “the decimal numbers assigned to the individual propositions indicate the logical importance of the propositions, the stress laid on themin my exposition. The propositions n.1, n.2, n.3, etc. are comments on proposition no. n; the propositions n. m1, n. m2, etc. are comments on proposition no. n. m; and so on.” But, as Stenius observed in reference to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, this form of presentation has more in commonwith musical compositions than with philosophical syllogisms. Let the reader be forewarned: attendance at this performance requires, above all, sensitivity of mind and clarity of heart.13
John Warwick 111.12214But common activities do not signify common causes; to assume this is to enter the sphere of post hoc, propter hoc.In certain instances nothing more profound than direct culturalborrowing accounts for similarity of religious practice.Most important, ceremonial parallels are of superficial kind;the issue is always the motivation behind and the purpose forwhich the practice is employed: but here even religions similarin practice can differ most radically.That is to say, the question of religious unity depends not uponpractice but upon teaching, or (expressed more accurately) itdepends upon the teaching which gives the practice its meaning; but the teachings are the focal center of disharmony amongthe world’s religions.Subjectively, students of the world’s religions (one thinks ofNinian Smart) frequently regard them as saying essentially thesame thing because they want them to say the same thing.True, Smart speaks of “religious” or “theological” rather than“phenomenological” grounds for legitimating the identificationof two or more contradictory beliefs as constituting worship ofthe same God, but this gratuitous dualism merely begs thequestion: why should a higher, “theological” level of validityexist in the face of clear phenomenological contradiction?The desire for religious unity, though not logically justifiable,is eminently understandable: it is a special case of man’s fundamental concern to bring oneness out of the diversity of hisexperience, or (in philosophical terms) to solve the ancientproblem of the One and the Many.The problem of the One and the Many can indeed be solved,but the solution will never result from ignoring genuine and irreducible differences in empirical experience; and the diversities in religious teaching constitute just such root differences.We may wish most fervently that the world’s religions taught aunified doctrine, but what is the case is not determined by whatwe wish to be the case.
TRACTATUS LOGICO-THEOLOGICUS1.2The conception of Deity-as-Ultimate-Concern (Tillich) is basic to religious belief, and can therefore serve as prime indicator of the logical disharmony among religious positions.1.21One can, with Hartshorne and Reese, pose five key questionsabout God, viz.:Is he eternal?Is he temporal?Is he conscious?Does he know the world?Does he include the world?If the affirmative answers are designated respectively asE,T,C,K, and W, then the following nine disharmonious positions, among others, can he identified:ETCKW: the Supreme as Eternal-Temporal Consciousness,knowing and including the world (Panentheism); representedby Plato, Sri Jiva, Schelling, Fechner, Iqbal, Radhakrishnan,Hartshorne.EC: the Supreme as Eternal Consciousness, not knowing or including the world (Aristotelian Theism).ECK: the Supreme as Eternal Consciousness, knowing but notincluding the world (Classical and Biblical Theism); represented by Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, the Protestant Reformers.E: the Supreme as the Eternal beyond consciousness andknowledge (Mysticism, Emanationism); represented by Plotinus and by the Cabalistic tradition.ECKW: the Supreme as Eternal Consciousness, knowing andincluding the world (Classical Pantheism); represented bySpinoza, Royce, and by the Eastern doctrine of Sankara.ETCK: the Supreme as Eternal-Temporal Consciousness,knowing but not including the world (Temporalistic Theism);represented by Socinus.ETCK(W): the Supreme as Eternal-Temporal Consciousness,partly exclusive of the world (Limited Panentheism); represented by James, .2231.2241.2251.2261.22715
John Warwick Montgomery1.2281.2291.231.241. 251.251T(C)(K): the Supreme as wholly Temporal or Emerging Consciousness; represented by Alexander.T: the Supreme as Temporal and Nonconscious; represented byWieman.Refinements of these positions offer numerous other irreconcilable possibilities, e.g., Whitehead’s belief that whereas God isnot the cosmos and does not include the cosmos, his activity isalways conditioned (though never determined) by the cosmos.Moreover, varieties of religious skepticism (for example, the“religio-pragmatic skepticism” of the Buddhist doctrine ofGod) stand in direct opposition to all positive claims as to thenature of Deity.Though all of the above God-assertions may be wrong, theycannot all be right.To claim, therefore, that the numerous conceptions of Deityamong religious positions “really say the same thing” is to require an answer to the que
The Tractatus Logico-Theologicus purports to break new ground apologetically, as did the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus epistemologically. It should be of particular interest to philosophers of religion, theologians, pastors, historians of ideas, and to everyone seeking solid answers for the ultimate questions which plague all of us at one time
As an aside, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is available free of charge from several websites; just google \Wittgenstein Tractatus free pdf." About Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus In 1921, Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (1889-1951) published a landmark book in philosophy, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophi-cus .
3 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3-4. 4 Wittgenstein in the Tractatus uses Satz [, which in the English translations is rendered as proposition [. 3 of the Tractatus who have been inclined to read these opening remarks as a statement of Wittgensteins fundamental ontology. She takes a different approach to the opening remarks: by the
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung By Ludwig Wittgenstein First published by Kegan Paul (London), 1922. SIDE-BY-SIDE-BY-SIDE EDITION, VERSION 0.58 (MAY 24, 2020), containing the original German, alongside both the Ogden/Ramsey, and Pears/McGuinness English translations.
Project Gutenberg’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, by Ludwig Wittgenstein This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. BY LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN, with an Introduction by BERTRAND RUSSELL. (International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method.) London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1922. Pp. 189. lOs. 6d. THIS is a most important book containing original ideas on a large
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Sandra Ramírez Sánchez* Cuando recibí el correo electrónico por el que me invitaban a participar en una mesa de discusión sobre tex-tos publicados hace cien años mi pri-mera reacción fue de entusiasmo. Se me ofrecía presentar uno de los traba - jos más influyentesen la filosofía,la
Tractatus logico-philosophicus Tractatus logico-philosophicus. w sz ytk iewł anośc ą pól — db w ogóle wskazać na jedną z nich. Jeżeli bowiem rzecz niczym się nie wyróżnia, to i ja jej wyróżnić nie mogę; inaczej byłaby właśnie wyróżniona.
8th Grade Writing and Speaking/Listening Scope and Sequence 1 s t Q u a r te r 2 n d Q u a r te r 3 r d Q u a r te r 4 th Q u a r te r Writing N a rra t i ve I n t ro d u ce ch a ra ct e rs a n d o rg a n i ze a n e ve n t se q u e n ce (W . 8 . 3 a ) U se n a rra t i ve t e ch n i q u e s i n cl u d i n g
