[C] [Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein and Theories
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:53:43 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "J" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> You may have noticed that my take on the rejection of "theory" and "theses"
> is somewhat different. In many cases, our respective takes on how to avoid
> reading Wittgenstein as self-refuting would not make a difference in
> practice, but in one respect there is a big difference: telling someone who
> is not a Wittgensteinian (and doesn't want to be) that theorizing or theses
> have no place in philosophy is not a legitimate move by my lights.
> Particular theses and theories must be confronted and the impulse to theorize
> perhaps eventually dissipated.
Agree entirely.
And I now realize that my previous comments can be made more concise, by asking
what is it that makes therapy non-theoretical?
> Rules against theorizing are relevant only to those committed to doing
> Wittgensteinian philosophy (according to a particular account of what that
> means).
Agreed.
> How far can we go in this? Does Hacker's approach, with the idea of "logical
> geography" go too far toward "theory" to still be Wittgensteinian?
Hacker does a marvelous job of presenting Wittgenstein, but when Hacker tries
to "do" Wittgenstein - I find it much less marvelous.
> > I still invite people to find the positive terms, rather
> > than simply practicing the ritual of therapy. That's
> > because I find much that is positive in Wittgenstein, and a
> > steady practice of therapy merely numbing.
>
> "Therapy" is one simile. "Surveyability" and its connections with finding
> our way about is another. Any simile can create only a partial picture and
> we have to be guided by Wittgenstein's practice if we are to understand him.
> And, dare I say it, by the "spirit" of his approach. To the extent that we
> may suppose that we have grasped such a thing.
And, if one can find in Wittgenstein (only) a single spirit!
I see you joined as a member only recently, if you didn't read a lot of the
earlier posts you may not know of my own hobbyhorse, my own concerns with
Wittgenstein focusing on that matters in which he, historically and
conceptually, intersects the work of Turing in particular and computation in
general - the issues of computation having continued well after both W & T had
passed on.
I find several spirits in Wittgenstein, multiple themes in the TLP period, and
a different multiple in the PI period (which actually begins circa 1929). Many
themes I see continued and developed by Turing, until they certainly chose
different paths by the time of LFM in 1939. The "therapeutic" spirit probably
became stronger over time, but I find it of little use to the topics of
computation. Turing's 1950 CMAI paper and "the Turing Test" are actually an
application of this therapeutic spirit, I believe, Turing states in that paper
NOT that the test "shows the computer is intelligent" but that the observation
dissolves the question of intelligence. That is well and good - as far as it
goes. That aspect of the Turing Test, that it does NOT produce a constructive
answer to what comprises intelligence, has proved very frustrating over the
subsequent years! Dissolving the question did not make it go away.
Josh
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
