[C] [Wittrs] Re: criticizing Wittgenstein
- From: J DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:42:14 -0800 (PST)
Sean,
We are, I take it, largely in agreement. There are just a few points I wanted
to clarify, so we better understand each other.
> 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.
For my part, it is less a matter of agreeing that "planes" "exist" (whatever
that might mean) than that I can recognize a picture according to which such
talk makes sense.
My objection is that such a picture can easily mislead (but any picture can
mislead, applied in the wrong way). That one of the ways it can mislead is
also impolitic is relevant only to the extent that it can thereby undermine
someone's receptivity to other Wittgensteinian insights..
In this forum, I see little reason to worry about politics, per se, and would
not have sought to salvage what I could agree to in your remarks, except for
the fact that your remarks also contain worthwhile insights and I wondered
whether those insights could be expressed in a way that wouldn't undermine
someone's receptivity in that way.
Of course, any way of presenting any point can be misunderstood by someone at
some time...
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."
Indeed. For any analogy to be helpful as we might like, it would need to
compare something less familiar and compare it to something more familiar. Or
take something more contentious and compare it to something less so.
But different people will find different things familiar or contentious.
Also, the analogy must be understood as fitting in the appropriate ways,
inappropriate extensions of it corrected.
That's why a Wittgensteinian needs a variety of similes, metaphors, pictures,
truisms, and so in in her repertoire.
Consider the Cezanne comparison an addition to the arsenal. Not a "final" or
even "better" answer but an alternative approach one might take.
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?".
As it should be.
> 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.
I concur.
JPDeMouy
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
