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/