[Wittrs] Re: Aftermath
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
(Justin Truth)
I have some thoughts I'd like to share late this evening regarding some issues
in your post. But for now, let me note:
1. The idea.
I'm not opposed to having a thread that reads through the Tractatus
line-by-line, if it is done, as you say, in one thread. You are right that it
will not hijack the group. Walter, of course, already did this on
quickphilosophy. I believe those discussions are on our discussion board. If
people are interested, we could do it again in here.
2. Unit of analysis.
My only concern, however, is that perhaps the Tractatus cannot meaningfully be
understood this way. Running through it like you would a mathematical proof may
not work. It seems better if we list and schedule a talk about the basic ideas
in the book, using book quotes to establish and support those ideas.
What I am trying to say is this: instead of the proposition being the unit of
analysis, perhaps the top 5 or 6 (10?) IDEAS should be the unit of analysis,
citing props that apply. I say this because the book makes reference to similar
ideas and concepts all throughout. And so, e.g., if you discuss what is meant
by "the world," you won't get much done by looking at the first few props. You
need to explain this idea by examining several props in the book.
3. Biography.
One of the things we have to ask ourselves is whether we want an argumentative
understanding of the Tractatus or a biographical one. If the book is approached
as though it were an argument, the kind of things we say or do with it are
different than if we understand it as an effort to understand HIM.
I would argue that a biographical understanding of the Tractatus is more
relevant: it sets up the life of post-1930 Wittgenstein much better. It also
allows us to consider the issue that Conant and Diamond raise, and which Ray
Monk opposes, which is the idea that the Tractatus should not be taken for what
it literally says. This interpretation makes Wittgenstein's intellectual life
more consistent in orientation, whatever one may otherwise think of it.
(If someone wants to organize a Tractatus reading, feel free to step forward).
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
[spoiler]Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://tinyurl.com/3eatnrx
Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs]
[/spoiler]
Other related posts:
