[C] [Wittrs] Re: criticizing Wittgenstein
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:41:01 -0800 (PST)
J:
... my take on the matter:
1. On the issue of how certain Wittgensteinians may be perceived, I would say
that I am not into politicking ideas. If one were to agree that "planes" exist,
to say that they should not be spoken of is only to indulge manners of some
kind. Such a concern is, of course, a legitimate ethic. One might want to do
this for all sorts of beneficial reasons in a social club. But it is likewise a
legitimate ethic to adopt sincerity as the goal, regardless of what the social
club does with it (or how it, as a result, discriminates). Indeed, placing
intellectual sincerity above community is one of the most important virtues in
the Wittgensteinian outlook. I have not argued for a closed mind, mind you, I
have argued only for the virtue in saying what is the case. Humans are at their
best when they take the world as it is. Vanity is far more of a vice than
arrogance (in this system).
2. As to whether you have presented a more agreeable account, I would say that
you have. No one could doubt that. But here is the thing I fear. What I fear is
that for one to understand a Cezanne as being concerned with different sorts of
problems that require the discovery of a new criteria to comprehend, one has to
already have a measure of insight. And for those who are offended by talk of
"planes," I fear that your substitute raises two possibilities. One, members of
the social club might deny the premise (for failure to understand); or two,
they might relegate the idea to say that so-and-so was simply "creative" rather
than a beacon or a kind of "hyper-insight" (for want of partial
understanding).
Here is what I want to say. Among those who really know of Wittgenstein, talk
of planes is neither false nor offensive. Besides, given what we know of the
brain, "planes" do not mean that the prodigy is above people in terms of moral
worth or something. (That he is an aristocrat or lord). It simply means that
certain cognitive tasks are of genius proportions, and that, to replicate that
understanding in plain folk, certain aspects of their own world need shut down
or "put aside" to even begin to relate to the beacon. Beacons need to be "seen"
before they are understood.
I'm prepping a course on Wittgenstein that I will air on the web. It might be
taught next year (but probably the one after). One of the first things my
students will be told (amply documented by Ray Monk in more than one of his
works), is that one can only ever be given a partial understanding of what
Wittgenstein meant ("saw"). And that, the goal of the course is to see as much
of him as is possible for each student, not for purposes of asking "do I
agree." Indeed, students will be assessed only on the measure, "what did I
understand about it?".
The goal is to understand as much as you can (for your limits), and then just
walk away. Go on with your life. You don't really have the option of either
criticizing it or accepting it, really. Either is a contrivance. Like a sponge,
you simply take with you whatever of the new liquid you can. This is the only
approach to Wittgenstein that I see is feasible.
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:
