[C] [Wittrs] the apotheosis of Wittgenstein
- From: J DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Sean and Stuart,
Certainly, Wittgenstein made mistakes. He was human after all.
And we have his own word that his earlier work involved "grave mistakes".
(A silly joke: "I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.")
I would suggest, however, that it is harder to pinpoint and understand
Wittgenstein's mistakes than to understand some people's certain triumph.
Wittgenstein, in the _Tractatus_ and _Investigations_, supposed that he might
only be understood by those who had had "the same or similar thoughts" or that
he might hope "to bring light into one brain or another," noting, "--but, of
course, it is not likely."
Was he underestimating himself? Us? Perhaps both. But given his experiences
teaching, lecturing, conversing about his ideas, and of seeing how his ideas
ended up disseminated in his lifetime, we should assume that at least the later
remarks were not groundless.
He also showed some misgivings about his influence on his more enthusiastic
students. And he warned us, "I should not like my writing to spare other
people the trouble of thinking. But, if possible, to stimulate someone to
thoughts of his own."
Deification hardly seems what he would have wished.
But I want to say (and is this what Sean has been getting at) that a degree of
trust is a prerequisite of understanding. This is true even in the most
ordinary exchanges but much more so with an exposition of great originality and
difficulty.
Still, we should remember "The Emperor's New Clothes".
But we should also remember the many cranks and crackpots who devote much
effort to disproving Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Typically, the do not
argue that experimental evidence has been faked (though some do). Rather, they
insist that Einstein's ideas are riddled with nonsense and contradiction.
Their work reflects not the critical attitude necessary for science, but a
failure of understanding.
Philosophy is not science. Very true. But that is why those who misunderstand
Wittgenstein are usually not called "cranks" and "crackpots": they're often
called "professional philosophers".
Stuart has compared the need to trust Wittgenstein to the master student
relationship in various discipline in the Far East and asked at one point the
student is permitted to criticize.
Wittgenstein is not with us to bestow inka or any other seal of transmission
and that wouldn't be his style anyway.
An individual can only judge for herself whether she is ready to criticize.
For myself, I would simply say that I have had enough experiences in studying
Wittgenstein of both benefiting from ideas that I had earlier dismissed and
more specifically, of criticizing only to later realize that I had clearly
misunderstood, that I am very circumspect in reading his works. As I learn
more, I am more circumspect, not less so.
But, as they say, your mileage may vary.
JPDeMouy
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [C] [Wittrs] the apotheosis of Wittgenstein - J DeMouy
