Is there true and false poetic fancy?

Question

Concerning the famous phrase of Wittgenstein "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", we can confidently speak and say, e.g., that gravity varies with the inverse square of the distance, and definitely not with the inverse cube. And we do not disagree on that.

But suppose that I write down some deliberately absurd lines, such as:

"Concerning the law of gravity and its intimate connection with all pseudo-problems of philosophy, absurd as it already seems, my intention is nonetheless fairly serious in its hopefully revitalizing preoccupation with the limits of representational language as opposed to subconscious potato-peeling. After all, why should any form of existential impenetrability not be recast as a playful reformation of some yet unformed linguistic habit?"

It may not be the best example, but my point is that if one enters a state of auto-suggestion in trying to make sense of the above, I think it is quite possible that one will succeed in at least forging one or two meaningful conceptual connections that otherwise would be very hard to pin down.

I mean that language seems to have a hidden power of triggering qualitative connotations that should not be left unexplored, the reason being that they can lead to a kind of mental activity different from the scientific pinning down of quantitative laws. That different kind of activity is also worthwhile for the following reason: it raises the question of whether philosophical disagreement is always due to an inflexibility in forging missing connections based on qualitative, aesthetic principles that are yet not well-known.

In view of the above, my questions are:

1. Are there examples of philosophical works where language is used in a deliberately absurd but thought-provoking way?
2. Is the above point of view totally misguided, in that the as yet narrow field of our quantitative, mathematical, scientific method of agreement is a clear indication of a vastly rich playground of interaction that lies ahead, being our only hope for bridging every kind of impulsive disagreement?

[EDIT]: In other words, I'm asking about the history & current work on the problem of whether objectively true and false poetic fancy can be conceived and clearly separated from each other, based on something other than personal opinion, similarly to falsifiable scientific statements not being based on personal opinion.

Answer 1

"If a lion could speak, we could not understand him"

Seems the more appropriate Wittgenstein quote. Understanding and communication are enmeshed with modes of life. If we can't find bridges between modes of life, communication will be problematic.

Physicist Wolfgang Pauli is said to have made a most damning criticism of a paper by saying "It's not even wrong". To be in a disagreement, means having the basis to be in dialogue, usually to be engaged in some dialectic of successive refinements to ideas. For a physicist, that means sharing commitments to standards of and types of evidence, the norms of the scientific community and respect for it's mechanisms, etc. If someone says the Earth is flat, they are being a crank, or relying on fringe science ideas and methods, and a sensible scientist would avoid wasting time on them.

"language seems to have a hidden power of triggering qualitative connotations that should not be left unexplored, the reason being that they can lead to a kind of mental activity different from the scientific pinning down of quantitative laws. That different kind of activity is also worthwhile for the following reason: it raises the question of whether philosophical disagreement is always due to an inflexibility in forging missing connections based on qualitative, aesthetic principles that are yet not well-known"

You seem to be saying, is say poetic use of language different to scientific use. Obviously, yes. But we should not assume sharp lines, or clear unchanging uses. Discussed here: What is the essential something that Heidegger suggests that philosophers can learn from poetry?

1. Camus' work, like The Plague and The Outsider. Nick Land's theory-fictions. Shelley Jackson's hypertext-fiction 'The Patchwork Girl' as an exploration of Haraway's 'The Cyborg Manifesto'.

You could also look at Taoism & Zen: Philosophers or philosophical traditions that reject symbolic reasoning

2. Hofstadter & Sander make the case in 'Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking' that play is critical to extending the capacities of language.

I would suggest looking deeper at what disagreements really are, in practice, and why they matter. Say, using Kuhn's paradigms picture. I see it as about intersubjectivity, peer-to-peer world building. We need to agree enough that we meaningfully share the same conceptual space. But disagree enough, to explore change and extend it. Discussed here: Is our general level of abstraction in ethics hypocritical?

Answer 2

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!..."

Long before the question I though of Lewis Carroll and Theo Geisel (Dr. Seuss).

There are many examples of such works. Another famous philosophical poet would be E. E. Cummings.

This existentialist application of language is very widely employed, even beyond our humble little planet. There is the infamous Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in my Armpit One Midsummer Morning, written and recited by Grunthos the Flatulent, Poet Master of the Azgoths of Kria.

I would know nothing about that, however.