[C] [Wittrs] Re: question for ABoncompagni
- From: Anna Boncompagni <anna.boncompagni@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:35:41 +0100
Hello J, thank you for your interest and... for your Italian!
Well I think there are more things put togheter in these issues.
The first and simplest is the change in our way of doing philosophy: afeter
W., in my opinion, we cannot think about a philosophical "theory" anymore,
since philosophy is much more an activity than a theory, and this, actually,
should change something also in academic teaching - I mean, making students
use their minds and reflect on the troubles of language is more important
then making them study traditional texts, for example.
The second is the change in our own lives. This is what truly interests me.
If you read something of W's life, as you certainly did, you realise the
deep connection that he felt between his work as a philosopher and his life.
Many episodes confirm this point, his refusal of the inheritage, his
decision to be a teacher or a gardener, his problems with the "cambridge way
of life". All this probably is not only a result of his philosophy but also
of his troubled character. But if you take the words you quoted, or also
"the solution of the problem that you see in life is a way of living that
makes the problem disappear" (Culture and value 1937), you get how deeply he
felt this. But I think that the deepest change is that, which allows you to
live your ordinary life, but with a new consciousness of what you are doing.
What W. wants is going back to the ordinary, without the "illness" of
philosophy, and only philosophy can take us there, it's like a medicine, or
better: a vaccine.
The third thing is the change in the world, in society, a change outside
ouselves. I don't think that W.'s philosophy may have a "political" or
"social" effect, nor intended to. At least, not insofar as you consider that
a change in your life does not imply a change in society. That's why - I
suppose - what we have previously considered can stay togheter with
"Philosophy leaves everything as it is".
Reading yuor email, I understand that maybe you think that also this third
point is possible, I mean that his philosophy suggests that we shouldn't be
commited to the status quo. Is this your opinion?
Potentially, given the importance of social activities in determining the
meaning of words, given that "What has to be accepted, the given, is forms
of life", we may be induced to think that a critique of the ordinary form of
life is possibile and requested. But W. doesn't seem to me to have such a
political point of view.
I'd like to know your and the other members' opinions about this, if you
like to continue this discussion.
Thank you
Anna
2009/12/5 J <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Gentile signora,
>
> Salve! Piacere di conoscerla.
>
> I wonder if you might be able to find the time to elaborate on something
> you wrote in your introduction. It's an issue that holds no small interest
> to me.
>
> "What personally attracts me is the fact that W. forces us to change
> completely our way of doing philosophy - and, also, I believe, our way of
> living."
>
>
Other related posts:
