[Wittrs] Avuncular v. Elitist Wittgenstein -- Part I
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
... J.
Got two mails coming to you. One addresses substantive issues; the other,
"this." I'll get to the second tomorrow evening. Been busy. Playing tennis
tomorrow in the early afternoon.
What you seem to be doing in these mails is making a lawyerly case with
selected
quotations for an avuncular vision of Wittgenstein. I have no trouble
discussing
this vision or those quotes. They are, indeed, good issues. (Much better than
we
are used to around here, for sure).
But what I fear is that you have difficulty discussing them, become you
become so repulsed by the manifestation of its opposite idea. You seem to do
something so many academics do in defense of their social clubs: you
"level-shame" and act with disbelief rather than "hear." Or, you don't engage
in
therapy well on that specific issue.
E.g., you use the word "ass" to describe one who believes that people
challenged
by insight are relegated to analytic means for understanding. And you offer
impressionistic falsehoods when characterizing my views - suggesting, e.g.,
that
I had supposed "God knowledge" of what every philosopher was doing. And you
appear to laugh at the idea that an academic could believe he or she to have
keen or acute traits relevant to understanding -- wanting, I assume, only a
different aristocratic metric (information? "I've read more." "I gave more
quotes." "I'm more pious." "They like me." Etc. ). I think you also mistakenly
call this view "narcissistic," which brings up the next point.
The idea that this might be a cultural prejudice seems not to have even entered
your mind. So many people have a picture in their head of understanding being
an
equally-accessible thing. And that academics train people for this collective
or
shared activity.Yet, for other traits, the picture is different. Reading
comprehension is tested differently. Mathematics isn't equal. Analytic
reasoning
varies. Scores in linguistic or verbal ability vary. Artisans and craftsmen
have
different levels of talent (different "eyes"). MRI's appear
differently. Athletics isn't equal. Nor aesthetics.
The idea that the ability to understand, synthesize or transform ideas is
varied
is not at all controversial. Anyone who teaches sees this daily. (Cf:
neurological arguments about brains or cognitive traits in men and women, or
otherwise). Also, it is hardly an ass-prop to hypothesize that what may make an
artist or person insightful may not be easily testable and may even vary
greatly
in academia itself. To say that views such as these are ass-props is only,
really, to call oneself a kind of "ass." It reminds me of the person who calls
another a dick for not being collegial.
You've had this issue before: you didn't like talk of "levels" of
Wittgensteinianisms in people. But what is quite interesting is how this side
of
your personality is itself incredibly defensive and dismissive -- but just not
from a Wittgensteinian sort of style. I see it less squarely as a kind of
demagoguery and more squarely as an orthodox defense of social-club norms (or
perhaps, of a pedagogical vision). In a sense, I see your profession talking
through the heart of a believer.
And what also troubles me here is the change in mood. You always start out so
prone to being "the first citizen." You come in gracious and knowing. You want
to be the picture of one being both balanced and informed. And then, when one
isn't enthralled or throwing roses at your insights, the tone of the replies
turn on a dime. I saw you do this with Stuart a long time ago. You even
apologized or it.
Anyway, my point is ultimately that you seem very invested in this avuncular
conception of Wittgensteinianism -- which really, at its core, seems nothing
more than the advocacy of peace and diversity within philosophy the social
club.
I want to say: you seem like a delegate of this view. And you do things like
tell me that I advocate "narcissistic aestheticism and pettiness" as a "pretext
to gratify some sense of superiority."
Yet, in truth, I have never done any such thing. All I have suggested is that
Wittgenstein's ideas comment generally upon the dynamic of insight. I have said
nothing about a person's "superiority" (other than Wittgenstein, of course).
To
the contrary, I have said on many occasions that it would be just as much of a
cultural prejudice to place the more insightful on a pedestal than it would be
to "level them" (pretend they don't exist). People's traits are varied and each
have their contribution. I've always believed that. I constantly harp upon that
with my students.
What this ultimately comes down to, I think, is a cultural prejudice against
the
idea that insight has levels -- and one dare not speak of it -- and how this
vision may be connected to Wittgenstein. And how, if true, it could disrupt the
aristocratic structure in philosophy (or other areas).
If insight is artistic, we have every reason to believe that the rank and file
of philosophy (and many other clubs) may not have those gifts in the same
measure, and that, as such, the kind of contributions they make in scholarship
would emphasize less creative or original means. I hardly think this is
controversial, and I think Wittgenstein's life and ideas bear an important
relationship to it.
And I also feel that you and I will never progress on the matter by ascribing
motivations to one another
(as we both have done). Anyway, I'm going to try and put some clarity on the
substantive issues tomorrow. Got to go to bed now.
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Avuncular v. Elitist Wittgenstein -- Part I - Sean Wilson
