[Wittrs] Re: [C] Avuncular v. Elitist Wittgenstein -- Part I
- From: John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:55:21 -0400
I'd hoped a Wittgenstein enthusiastic would get the allusion and the
point I'd intended to make with it, but here goes:
When discussing with Drury for his book, Wittgenstein mentioned that he
was considering the title, "Philosophical Remarks." When Drury
suggested simply calling it "Philosophy", Wittgenstein replied (in a
manner that could hardly be called "avuncular"). "Don’t be such a
complete ass – how could I use a word that has meant so much in the
history of mankind? As if my work wasn’t only a small fragment of
philosophy."
I had hoped you might recall that incident, as I know you are a student
of Wittgenstein's life. And perhaps then recall the message therein.
Perhaps then even consider its relevance to my own remarks.
>
> avuncular vision of Wittgenstein.
It has nothing to do with avuncularity, actually. It would be rather
silly for me to claim that Wittgenstein was always gentle and
mild-mannered, endlessly patient, or anything of the sort.
The reasons I emphasize that the patient is the authority on the picture
behind their thought have nothing to do with kindness or civility but
rather...
1. Wittgenstein explicitly and unambiguously said so, as I have clearly
shown.
2. Such an approach is part and parcel of Wittgenstein's whole approach
to the inner generally and to the criterial role of sincere avowal in
such language games.
3. Such an approach connects with Wittgenstein's own critique of Freud
and issues he raised about Freud's approach.
4. Insisting that the patient is guided by this or that picture,
whatever they might say, is worse than useless: it is
counter-productive. This isn't a remark about courtesy or respect but
efficacy.
5. Insisting one knows someone's thought better than they themselves is
usually stupid and arrogant presumption. The arrogance may annoy but
the stupidity is my principle objection here.
> And you offer
> impressionistic falsehoods when characterizing my views - suggesting,
> e.g., that
> I had supposed "God knowledge" of what every philosopher was doing.
I am not certain why you used inverted commas around "God knowledge",
but I want to emphasize that I used no such phrase.
> 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
Not at all.
> -- 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.
What I described as "narcissistic" was the view you ascribed to
Wittgenstein, viz. that his unhappiness with much of the world around
him was rooted in a conviction that his own pictures were better than
the pictures held by those around him.
No doubt in many cases they were. No doubt this was a source of
irritation and frustration for him. But Wittgenstein was witness to far
greater evils in the world than impoverished ideas.
>
> The idea that this might be a cultural prejudice seems not to have
> even entered
> your mind.
Since you've misread me in what I've called "narcissistic" and misread
me as denying that some may be more insightful than others, you may be
surprised that it hadn't occurred to me that those were cultural
prejudices, since I wasn't even entertaining or advancing such positions
to begin with.
> So many people have a picture in their head of understanding being an
> equally-accessible thing.
Do they? This isn't a prejudice I often encounter. On the contrary, I
often hear, especially in an age of identity politics, claims that this
or that group (typically groups identified as "privileged") lack the
capacity to understand those who belong to other groups. And that is
just one area of public discourse where I find the opposite of what you
say. In relationships, the "war between the sexes", one also hears
claims of varying capacities for understanding.
> 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.
I haven't claimed that any aptitude is equally distributed across any
group. You're expending a great deal of verbiage on refuting straw men.
>
> The idea that the ability to understand, synthesize or transform ideas
> is varied
> is not at all controversial.
Of course not.
> 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.
To clarify:
I am not denying that Wittgenstein was - or often could be - elitist.
But I would add that he, like Tolstoy, whom he admired, was not always
proud of this fact about himself.
I am not attacking elitism, though it does seem rather peculiar to use a
term normally considered pejorative as an honorific. It genuinely left
me unsure of what you intended. At least for a moment.
I am not denying that various skills and aptitudes are unevenly
distributed. Nor am I denying that certain gifts are difficult to
teach.
However, I will say that, while I recognize the wide variability of
various gifts, I am not so impressed by those who merely profess to have
profound insights while saying little else evincing the same. I am not
so impressed by those who would go on at great length about their gifts
and their capacity to recognize said gifts (or their absence) in others,
while seemingly saying nothing that demonstrates such talents.
Although, perhaps I am merely too blind to see the Emperor's wonderful
attire.
But even that is not why I suggested you were being an ass.
A stubborn conviction that those who employ other methods invariably do
so because they lack the aptitudes you claim to possess is a simplistic
and stupid prejudice. And it is gratuitous, mere hand-waving in defense
of a method that needs no such defense and whose merit is best
appreciated in practice rather than with petty comparisons and
insinuations.
>
> You've had this issue before: you didn't like talk of "levels" of
> Wittgensteinianisms in people.
Actually, I recognize quite readily and willingly acknowledge that there
are varying degrees of enthusiasm, understanding, and commitment to
Wittgenstein's methods and insights. I also recognize that, even
amongst those who have studied his work closely, even amongst those who
studied under him personally, there are differences of interpretation
and emphasis. Playing the game of "more-Wittgensteinian-than-thou"
becomes quite pointless at a certain point, if it had any point to begin
with.
But moreover, merely proclaiming oneself to have had some profound
insight into Wittgenstein and his thought, again, simply does not
impress me.
Presenting specific reasons, textual, biographical, historical, logical,
or even aesthetic, for favoring one interpretation over another can lead
to interesting and fruitful discussion. But simply professing to have a
superior grasp makes one a pompous ass.
> In a sense, I see your profession talking
> through the heart of a believer.
You have no idea my profession. In any event, I have no personal
investment whatsoever in academic philosophy.
>
>
> 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,
While such compliments are not unwelcome - are even appreciated - they
actually make me rather unnerved. Unless of course they come from
beautiful and thoughtful young women (my own weakness). I certainly do
not demand them.
> 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.
Admittedly, I do lose patience rather quickly with those who seem to me
not to be operating in good faith, not to be engaged in sincere inquiry.
And it is quite possible that I am sometimes mistaken in that judgment.
But you are mistaken to suppose that this has to do with whether they
agree or disagree with me or show me sufficient deference.
Other related posts:
