[C] [Wittrs] Re: Re: Re: Wittgenstein and Theories
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Hi Anna.
I agree with 1. I'm not exactly sure of 2, but I think I see your point. And I
agree with 3.
But I think this also is true: the role that "contradiction" has as a vehicle
to critique Wittgenstein is much more of a concern for early Wittgenstein than
later. Post 1930, Wittgenstein would give "confusion" a greater priority than
contradiction. In fact, I don't know that he would recognize "contradiction"
as even being the right sort of inquiry (for the same reason he rejected
people saying he had theories and points). One would have to adopt a theory and
logic grammar to be concerned with "contradiction" as a supreme evil. So long
as Wittgenstein is not CONFUSED -- so long as no party to a dispute is
confused -- there can be no contradiction in any meaningful sense. This gets us
to the point I made about a person putting a bumper sticker on a car that said
"Don't use bumper stickers any longer." A logic-oriented person would say this
is a contradiction. But someone else would need more information before he or
she dismissed it.
One can imagine all sorts of situations where the sticker is efficacious and
the message not confused.
So, my point is simple: confusion is the new "god."
I do also agree with 4. But hopefully, Investigations also allows one to go
back to life in a way that avoids pointless quarrels and encourages keen
insight into the troubles that one another run into when they make more of
language than what it is.
But I essentially agree with your account.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
I
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
