[C] [Wittrs] Re: When The New Wittgenstein Arrived
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:31:02 -0000
From the preface of the Harpre Torchbooks Edition of THE BLUE AND BROWN BOOKS
published 1965, copyright Basil Blackwell, 1958
Rush Rhees writing:
"Wittgenstein dictated the 'Blue Book' (though he did not call it that) to his
class in Cambridge during the session 1933-34, and he had stencilled copies
made. He dictated the "Brown Book" to two of his pupils (Francis Skinner and
Alice Ambrose) during 1934-35. He had only three typed compies made of this,
and he showed them only to very close friends and putpils. But people who
borrowed them made their own copies, and there was a trade in them. If
Wittgenstein had named these dictations, he might have called them
"Philosophical Remarks" or "Philosophical Investigations". But the first lot
was bound in blue wrappers and the second in brown, and they were always spoken
of that way.
"He sent a copy of the Blue Book to Lord Russell later on, with a covering
note."
Rhees reproduces that covering note (which I have elsewhere transcribed and
posted onto this list earlier on.
Then Rhees continued:
"That was all the Blue Book was, though: a set of notes. The Brown Book was
rather different, and for a time he thought of it as a draft of something he
might publish. He started more than once to make revisions of a German version
of it. The last was in August 1936. He brought this, with some minor changes
and insertions, to the beginning of the discussion of voluntary action -- about
page 154 in our text. Then he wrote, in heavy strokes, "Dieser ganze 'Versuch
einer Umarbeitung' vom (Anfang) bis hierher ist nichts wert". ("This whole
attempt at a revision, from the start right up to this point, is worthless.")
That was when he began what we now have (with minor revisions) as the first
part of the Philosophical Investigations.
"I doubt if he would have published the Brown Book in English, whatver
happened. . . . What we are printing here are notes he gave to his pupils, and
a draft for his own use; that is all.
"Philosophy was a method of investigation, for Wittgenstein, but his conception
of the method was changing. We can see this in the way he uses the notion of
'language games', for instance . . ."
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> Because Stuart has on many occasions on this list proclaimed, falsely,
> that the Blue and Brown Books represent Wittgenstein in a transitional period
> between Tractarian thought and Philosophical Investigations, I thought I
> would take a few moments to hopefully see such erroneous information stop. I
> believe this sentence here is the latest incarnation of something completely
> false:
>
> "[Stuart said:] ... the Blue Book reflects his transitional phase and is only
> the result of notes taken in his classes by some of his students. At least
> the Brown Book had the merit of being supervised and corrected by him with an
> eye toward possible publication. I don't think we can take anything said in
> the Blue Book as dispositive for Wittgenstein's ideas. It is, at best,
> helpful and somewhat indicative of where he was going."
>
> In point of fact, the only "transitional" work offered by Wittgenstein is
> known today as Philosophical Remarks, reflecting his thoughts during the
> period of 1929-1930. This manuscript was generated so he could continue to
> receive a stipend to lecture at Cambridge, something he had only been doing 1
> year before. He had to present the ideas to Russell so Russell could vouch
> for Wittgenstein's continued funding by the college. It is this work that is,
> paradoxically, most Kantian while it is also seemingly-most verificationist.
> (See Ray Monk, 292).
>
Assuming you mean he offered it as a transitional work, why would he have
considered himself doing transitional work while in transition? How would he
know he would end up in a different place, when such work was behind him?
As to the transitional nature of the material, I refer, again, to Rhees
characterization, Rhees being a contemporary and acquaintance of Wittgenstein.
While this isn't evidence he has it right he is at least a credible witness in
the case. Of course, being in transition says nothing about the locus on the
transitional continuum and it is fairly obvious that his thinking in the Blue
and Brown Books is more like what we later find in the Investigations than in
the Tractatus. Still, Wittgenstein himself rejected the material, if Rhees is
to be believed, and, more the material reveals a continued evolution in his
thinking in terms of certain concepts (e.g., "language games") which play a
significant role in his later Investigations.
I did make one mischaracterization though in an earlier reference I made to the
Blue and Brown Books, which I noticed on returning to Rhees' preface for the
purpose of answering Sean's comment. I said before that at least the Brown Book
had the benefit of his oversight while the Blue Book did not. It turns out that
Rhees reports in that same preface, based on the cover note of Wittgenstein to
Russell, that Wittgenstein did review and edit the material in what was being
called the Blue Book and which he was sending on to Russell.
As to Sean's statement that "There is no indication that he intended the Brown
Book to be published" (I'm paraphrasing here as have already snipped out the
relevant part of the text in keeping with the usual rules of cutting away
excess verbiage -- I inadvertently cut too much when I snipped!), please see
Rhees' comment above. So the Blue Book, too, had the benefit of his attention.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
