[C] [Wittrs] Re: Re: Wittgenstein and Theories
- From: Anna Boncompagni <anna.boncompagni@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:14:39 +0100
Sean,
>>> To the extent that philosophy is commonly taught as being started by
Socrates (knowing, of course, that there were pre-socratics), it was
effectively ended by Wittgenstein. That is, Wittgenstein showed what the
answers consisted of, and what techniques were required to silence the
problems. The only reason philosophy-the-social-club doesn't understand this
is twofold. (A) It doesn't have a Wittgenstein anymore (no one else can do
it). And (B), it isn't good for business.
It isn't good for business, that's clear, it makes all philosophers
unemployed!
Thank you all for this interesting discussion. I'd like to add a question,
if it may enrich the topic.
In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein does build theories, thesis and definitions -
what is the general form of proposition, what are meaning and
sense according to the picture theory of language, what is the relation
between language and reality and so on. Nevertheless he goes beyond them and
declares them to be nonsense in the famous closing propositions of the book.
In the Investigations, he avoids the theoretical approach, by using
perspicuos representation and family resemblances, which are means to the
end of not theorizing but only show how we play in our linguistic games.
Thus to analyse the meaning of a word is to see how it is used in the
different contexts of the ordinary life.
I think there are analogies and differences between Tractatus and
Investigations on this point. It seems to me that
1. Both aim to show something instead of saying it;
2. Both perspectives risk to be self-contraddictory;
3. Investigations, using the new tools of perspicuos representation and
family resemblancies, and inviting us to "look, not think", is better armed
against contraddiction;
4. In Tractatus, the end is to see the world rightly; in the Investigations,
what we get is, again, a vision, but this vision is intended to let us go
back to our original and spontaneous life, in a pragmatic perspective that
we can't find in the Tractatus.
I'd like to know your opinions, if you like.
Thank you
Anna
Other related posts:
