[C] [Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein and Theories
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:16:35 -0800 (PST)
... I just had a thought.
I've always been troubled by how certain remarks of Wittgenstein are
understood. In particular, the ones about theorizing. Wittgenstein quite
clearly told his students that he was never presenting a theoretical account of
anything and that to do so was inherently problematic. Examples:
1. During the Christmas break in 1930 in discussions he said with Schlick and
Waismann, he said,
(a). "For me, a theory is without value. A theory gives me nothing." (Monk,
304).
(b). And in another context: "If I were told anything that was a theory, I
would say, No, no! That does not interest me -- it would not be the exact thing
I was looking for." (305)
(c) And again, in another context: "You cannot gain a fundamental understanding
of mathematics by waiting for a theory." (307)
2. When lecturing in 1938, Wittgenstein had used as an example the
deterioration of the German musical tradition. Rush Rhees, one of his students,
then asked Wittgenstein about his theory of deterioration -- to which
Wittgenstein reacted, horrified, "Do you think I have a theory? Do you think
I'm saying what deterioration is? What I do is describe different things called
'deterioration.'" (405)
3. "It was important to Wittgenstein's conception of his philosophical method
that there could be no disagreements of opinion between himself and Turing. In
his philosophy he was not advancing any theses, so how could there possibly be
anything to disagree with? When Turing once used the phrase, 'I see your
point,' Wittgenstein reacted forcefully: 'I have no point.' If Turing was
inclined to object to what Wittgenstein was saying ... it could only be a
question of giving meaning to words. Or, rather, it could only be a question of
Turing's not understanding Wittgenstein's use of certain words." (419)
I had always maintained this strand of Wittgenstein's thought was misunderstood
by many people. Some people read it as saying that conceptualism or abstract
sort of thinking is disallowed. This is clearly not the case. My old way of
saying it was this: Wittgenstein is against "formalism, not conceptualism." I
would say: he's against making certain subjects (language, art, etc) into a
mathematics or a logic. In what are incredibly radical lectures, he was also
against making mathematics itself into a kind of "mathematics" or logic in the
sense that I am now speaking.
But I think I have found a better way to say this. It came upon me when
ordering coffee today. Here is the way to say it. Wittgenstein is against LAWS,
not "theories." That is, he has a particular use of "theories" that is
formalistic and pristine. When he says "theory," he means a proposition that is
a candidate to become a law. Theories as law-candidates. I don't mean law in a
legal sense (though it be a cousin in the family); I mean "law" like "natural
law" or the the "iron law of oligarchy," or "the law of physics," etc. Unified
theory. The one true proposition.
The idea is this. Whenever someone formally places a theory into play, what
they are doing is offering the candidacy of a proposition. If the proposition
survives its candidacy (in the academy), it becomes a sort of law for the thing
in question.
So Wittgenstein is against these rituals. He's against this whole activity. And
the best way to say it TODAY is to simply re-read the passages above,
substituting the word LAW for theory. Wittgenstein is against the offering
of laws for understanding. Understanding does not consist in the ritual of
trying to propound laws. Wittgenstein is NOT against conceptual accounts of
things that actually occur (e.g., games). He's not against thinking and
pondering. He's not against "picturing" (because it can't be avoided), but he
does want you to understand what "picturing" is. What he is
fundamentally against is an approach to understanding wherein a person will try
to produce a law for the activity -- at least for language, ethics, aesthetics,
mathematics and many others. (One assumes he is not against something like this
in science. But maybe even here, it could have issues).
Regards.
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:
