[Wittrs] Re: [C] Avuncular v. Elitist Wittgenstein -- Part I
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
J:
On this particular thread, we seem to have more agreement than not. But there
are a few issues that I attend to.
1. On your mention of Drury and the title of Wittgenstein's work, here's an
opposite idea. When Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge to teach, they asked him
what he wanted to call his very first course. He said, "The subject of the
lectures would be philosophy. What else can be the title of the lectures but
Philosophy." Ray Monk then states, "And, under this uniquely general title,
they
were so listed for the rest of Wittgenstein's lecturing career." (p. 289). No
point here. Just FYI.
2. I wouldn't be impressed by one who professed something that I couldn't see,
either. But the issue of whether you are seeing it is a function of whether
it's
understood. And that doesn't come through any other means other than being able
to command the person's line of thought to his or her acceptance. And where
that
isn't happening, we can't go further with the idea. In fact, in such a
situation, the other person would probably have a reciprocal impression.
3. On your latest defense of "assness," it is again a shallow idea. It would
not
all all be objectionable for a person to hold the view that analytic
philosophers think differently than creative philosophers, while thinking they
also had some creative aptitude. This happens all the time. People say, e.g.,
that liberal arts majors think differently than engineers, and they say this
while attributing the difference to themselves or others. Or, one says that
poets think differently about the world compared to, say, bureaucrats, while
ascribing to oneself the behavior of poetry. These are occupational statements.
Think of one who says, "lawyers think a certain way," and this can be narrow.
Or, one who says that conservative ideology has a different cognitive or
neurological path -- e.g., insecurity -- while claiming himself not to be
insecure.
Indeed, your position here is extremely closed minded. It is about as stubborn
and ass-borne of an idea that one could have. It's, as you say, "a stupid
prejudice." And what it says is that certain ideas cause your thoughts to cease
being intellectual. It's like a switch you are turning off. What I am trying to
say is: don't turn it off.
Let me say this very carefully to you. It isn't even arrogant, let alone
"assful," for one to make an observation about how he or she behaves
cognitively
(or otherwise) compared to others. An intelligent person cannot help but see
these things. These are not statements of greatness; they are aptitude
statements. They are like these sorts of statements: "you like quantifying,
remembering, reporting; I like comparing and contrast." "You are suited more
for
the concrete; me for the abstract."
Finally, keep in mind that my proposition here is really an empirical matter.
Imagine one day if a study revealed that doing analytic philosophy (or certain
types of it) resulted in a different imaging than those who did, say, painting
or inventing or "ideating" (or what not). And let's say one person would come
along and completely blow away philosophy as a tradition -- put her to bed, so
to speak. And let's say this person (Wittgenstein), while doing this, would
have
noted very peculiar things about the way he thought versus others. (NOTE: see
quotes marked ** below!). Finally, let's assume an MRI would have validated it.
If all of this were true, it would hardly be assful for those who "get
Wittgenstein" to say: "yes, I see it." And it would hardly be problematic to
say
when comparing themselves to those who do not see it, that perhaps an aptitude
of some sort was the result. And this is especially so where teaching has
confirmed this general experience (of how minds work). And note that even if
the
hypothesis was WRONG, that's wouldn't make it "assful." It would make it a prop
like any other.
J -- make sure you read those Wittgenstein quotes below, ok?
4. Finally, J, keep in mind that there is a recurring problem here. You appear
to believe that I have taken a position in here something like this: "I am more
insightful than you; so therefore, I am right and you are dumb." I have never
taken anything close to that position. I might have said to Walter, "you
misunderstand." Or I have said, analytics tend not to be creative or insightful
in thought. Neither of these things pose any problem whatsoever. As to what I
believe about these issues, see here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrswhy/
5. FWIW, I do agree with you that pointing out things like the above (or
comparing levels of insight) may, indeed, be pointless in that they "don't
work." I also agree that it would not constitute "therapy." But there is
another
thing to consider here. This is a Wittgensteinian list. I created this space
precisely so things like this could be freely said by Wittgensteinians, free of
cultural, social-group and bar-stool prejudice. This list really isn't for
analytics. In truth, we can't live together anyway. One reason why is that we
exist in completely different frameworks. I'm not going to apologize for my
framework or hold it back.
6. Why not tell us a little more about yourself. Why do you chose a pseudonym?
I
had assumed you to be a philosophy professor, but I think not now. Looks like
the Wiki was wrong: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs. I noticed
your prior address was rocketmail. I have to tell you something: your recent
posts don't seem like the ones from the rocketmail addy. And I am now wondering
if you are "you." You are free to be here and be anonymous, either way. But it
would be nice if you shared more with us.
And, I have to tell you. This may not affect you at all: you may not even care.
But I'm not really open to discussions in here that aren't intellectual. And if
you are going to continue with the "pompous ass" thing, I'm probably going to
have to boot you. I hope that doesn't happen, J. You've had the most potential
in here of anyone to have intellectual discussions with. I'd hate to lose you.
But that would be just the way it goes.
Regards and thanks.
(P.S. -- I'll get to your substantive issues tomorrow)
**WITTGENSTEIN QUOTES:
=======================
“I just took some apples out of a paper bag where they had been lying for a
long
time. I had to cut half off many of them and throw it away. Afterwards when I
was copying out a sentence I had written, the second half of which was bad, I
at
once saw it as a half-rotten apple. And that’s how it always is with me.
Everything that comes my way becomes a picture for me of what I am thinking
about at the time. (Is there something feminine about this way of thinking?)”
CV
1937, p.31
“If I am thinking about a topic just for myself and not with a view to writing
a
book, I jump about all round it; that is the only way of thinking that comes
naturally to me. Forcing my thoughts into an ordered sequence is a torment for
me. Is it even worth attempting now? CV, 1937, 28.
"I think I summed my attitude to philosophy when I said: philosophy ought
really
to be written as a POETIC COMPOSITION. It must, as it seems to me, be possible
to gather from this how far my thinking belongs to the present, future or past.
For I was thereby revealing myself as someone who cannot quite do what he would
like to be able to do." from Culture and Value, 1933-34, page 24 ...
Getting hold of the difficult DEEP DOWN is what is hard.
Because if it is grasped near the surface it simply remains the difficulty it
was. It has to be pulled out by the roots; and that involves our beginning to
think about these things in a new way. The change is as decisive as, for
example, that from the alchemical to the chemical way of thinking. The new way
of thinking is what is so hard to establish.
Once the new way of thinking has been established, the old problems vanish;
indeed they become hard to recapture. For they go with our way of expressing
ourselves and, if we clothe ourselves in a new form of expression, the old
problems are discarded along with the old garment. CV, 1946 at 48.
“People sometimes say they cannot make any judgment about this or that because
they have not studied philosophy. This is irritating nonsense, because the
pretence is that philosophy is some sort of science. People speak of it almost
as they might speak of medicine. – On the other hand we may say that people who
have never carried out an investigation of a philosophical kind, like, for
instance, most mathematicians, are not equipped with the right visual organs
for
this type of investigation or scrutiny. Almost in the way a man who is not used
to searching in the forest for flowers, berries, or plants will not find any
because his eyes are not trained to see them and he does not know where you
have
to be particularly on the lookout for them. Similarly, someone unpracticed in
philosophy passes by all the spots where difficulties are hidden in the grass,
whereas someone who has had practice will pause and sense that there is a
difficulty close by even though he cannot see it yet. – And this is no wonder
for someone who knows how long even the man with practice, who realizes there
is
a difficulty, will have to search before he finds it.
When something is well hidden it is hard to find.” CV, 1937. 29
“Philosophers use a language that is already deformed as though by shoes that
are too tight.” CV 1941. 41e
“Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a
piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up “What’s that?” – It happened
like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and
said:
“this is a man,” “this is a house,” etc. And then the child makes some marks
too
and asks: what’s THIS then? (CV, 1931 p. 17). [allcaps substituted for italics
--sw]
“If in life we are surrounded by death, so too in the health of our intellect
we
are surrounded by madness.” CV, 1944. 44
“Wanting to think is one thing; having a talent for thinking another.” CV,
1944. 44
You could attach prices to thoughts. Some cost a lot, some a little. And how
does one pay for thoughts? The answer, I think, is: with courage. 1946. CV 52
“Every idea that costs a lot carries in its train a host of cheap ones; among
these are even some that are useful.” CV 1947 58
“Sometimes you see ideas in the way an astronomer sees starts in the far
distance (Or it seems like that anyway).” CV 1947” 58
“A teacher may get good, even astounding, results from his pupils while he is
reaching them and yet not be a good teacher; because it may be that, while his
pupils are directly under his influence, he raises them to a height which is
not
natural to them, without fostering their own capacities for work at this level,
so that they immediately decline again as soon as the teacher leaves the
classroom. Perhaps this is how it is with me; I have sometimes thought so.” CV,
1940, p. 38
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
[spoiler]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[/spoiler]
Other related posts:
