[C] [Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein and Theories
- From: J DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Rob,
Very worthwhile remarks.
It appears to me that you and I are largely in agreement, but I am replying for
a couple of reasons.
>
> The quotes you give from various sources are indeed
> pertinent,
> but it surprises me that you do not mention and quote PI
> $109,
> which seems to me Wittgenstein's fundamental, central and
> core
> statement on this matter. I do not have PI on me right now,
> so
> cannot accurately reproduce it. At any rate this and
> several
> preceding and subsequent remarks in PI are to my mind
> pretty
> clear on this, and definitive.
Since I have an ebook of the second edition, I thought I might help here.
109. It was true to say that our considerations could not be scientific
ones. It was not of any possible interest
to us to find out empirically 'that, contrary to our preconceived ideas, it is
possible to think such-and-such'--whatever
that may mean. (The conception of thought as a gaseous medium.) And we may not
advance any kind of theory.
There must not be anything hypothetical in our considerations. We must do away
with all explanation, and
description alone must take its place. And this description gets its light,
that is to say its purpose, from the
philosophical problems. These are, of course, not empirical problems; they are
solved, rather, by looking into the
workings of our language, and that in such a way as to make us recognize those
workings: in despite of an urge to
misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but
by arranging what we have
always known. Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our
intelligence by means of language.
> Peter Hacker (sometimes along with Gordon Baker) has
> written
> extensively, and I reckon pretty definitively, on
> Wittgenstein's
> a-theoretical, purely descriptive conception of philosophy,
> not
> least in the Analytical Commentary itself but many places
> else-
> where too (although even Hacker and Baker winded up with
> fundamental disagreements on Wittgenstein's method!!!)
> Hacker might not be the last word on Wittgenstein but he is
>
> certainly one of the most sound and scholarly we have, on
> most
> of the basics.
Interestingly, one of Gordon's disagreements with Hacker was on the very matter
of "theory". How much would Hacker's elaboration of rules of grammar, in the
name of "perspicuous presentation", count as theorizing in an objectionable
sense? I find this a very tricky subject and I can see why even two superb
Wittgenstein scholars might disagree on this point.
JPDeMouy
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
