[C] [Wittrs] Re: When The New Wittgenstein Arrived
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 18:29:49 -0800 (PST)
Stuart:
I know of the preface to the publication. Thanks for offering that to the list.
But it does seem that you have once again suggested something false or that you
have not understood it. So just to be perfectly clear for those who are
confused, I offer the following.
Academics are always working on their ideas in one format or another,
particularly if they have original thoughts. If you have original and novel
ideas, you'll give them in lectures. You'll make notes or outlines for your
students (or they will). You'll generate manuscripts (conference papers),
second and third drafts ("typescripts"), and so forth. In this day and age,
you'll even have dictation and emails. Let us call the sum of these things the
"paper-trail of your thoughts." Or better yet, let's call it by what the
lawyers do: "work product."
Wittgenstein had a particular style of "work product." He wrote remarks in
notebooks. He then went back into the notebooks and created manuscripts from
the remarks he thought more worthy. From these manuscripts, he created a
further selection which he dictated to a typist. These were
called "typescripts." According to Monk (319), he used these typescripts either
for the creation of other (more-edited) typescripts or began re-arranging the
content by cutting up remarks, clipping them together and so forth. Monk says
that he would then start the process all over again! (lol). This entire
reflective and regurgitive process continued for over twenty years for the
period we are talking about. He never reached a final version of anything that
he found fit for publishing. His literary executors, therefore, were left with
the task of rummaging through all the various typescripts, tangents,
remarks, clipped segments and so forth in order to
reconstruct his views as best as can be. (Go read the preface to Zettel, which
apparently is a bunch of remarks Wittgenstein clipped together and stored in a
box). That is what true Wittgensteinianism is -- it's a reconstruction. It's
the same sort of thing you would need to understand (historical) Jesus or
Socrates.
Now, what you are saying is that somehow the Blue and Brown books should be
cast aside for some reason. You've also included Culture and Value (in the
past) and, I assume, biography (letters, diaries and so forth). But when it is
all said and done, I don't know what it is that you are pointing to as "the
finished work" or "the real thing." People who truly read Philosophical
Investigations find very important help in this regard in all the other
manuscripts and remarks. In fact, there is no indication at all that
Wittgenstein ever wanted his Cambridge lectures retracted. Rather, he always
wanted them UNDERSTOOD. So the Blue Books are not some weird collection of odd
views that have to be set aside because they are "transitory."
Now, let's deal with the Brown Book and the publication issue. This is another
misunderstanding. Monk is correct when he asserts of the Brown Book, that it
"reads almost like a textbook," (I prefer the term manual), because it is an
application of his new method. Monk writes, "It is as though the book was
intended to serve as a text in a course designed to nip in the bud any latent
philosophizing." This is because there is "no philosophical moral ... drawn
other than ... understanding" language games.(342-343). Monk goes on to say,
"There is no indication that Wittgenstein considered publishing the Brown
Book." (346). (Please do note that sentence).
Now, what Rhees is talking about appears to be something subtly different. He's
talking about the fact that in 1936 Wittgenstein was going about his usual
manners, regurgitating and reformulating his work product (making insertions
here and there). At this point in time, Wittgenstein isn't really working on
"THE BROWN BOOK" per se (as it to publish "IT"), but upon the same "thing" that
he is working on when he cuts and plays with his typescripts. He's just trying
to find a way to birth his product. So he's using teh Brown Book AS A
TYPESCRIPT. In this respect, he makes some insertions and then later declares,
"This whole attempt at revision, from the start right up to this point, is
WORTHLESS". [allcaps substituted for italics in quote -- sw]. And so, he puts
down that typescript and begins writing (I should say, completing!) what will
be 1-188 in PI.
There is no contradiction between Rhees and Monk. There is only the language
game and the failure to know biography. Rhees is saying the Brown Book might
have been thought to be published one day because Wittgenstein chose to grind
it up in his workmill. All that that means is that the Brown Book was input
material for the mill. Monk is saying "the Brown Book" BEFORE IT IS MAKRED UP
-- the historical one -- was not attempted to be published. That is an
historical fact. That is true. It was not written to be published; it was
written to serve as an application of the new method (apparently for
his classes). (Or perhaps just as feed for the mill -- just another
typescript).
Now, if I am wrong that Rhees and Monk are not really disagreeing, I must say
that I would be suspicious of the claim that Wittgenstein thought of the Brown
Book "for a time" as a draft of something he might publish. There is all sorts
of historical information indicating that he did not want that stuff officially
"out there." There is every bit of historical evidence to think of the Brown
Book as just another Wittgensteinian typescript no different than the box files
of Zettel or the manuscripts that form the various segments of PI.
So I would hope that in the future you think better of your history of
Wittgenstein's manuscripts.
Regards and thanks.
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
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
