[Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Notes on Duncan Richter's essay 'Did Wittgenstein Disagree With Heidegger?'
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
J:
Thanks for sharing those quotes. It's always great to see you pick things out
that support your mail. You always were the best person to converse with around
here. Really enjoy how you throw Wittgenstein's quotes in and give life to
them.
However, that said, I have some replies:
1. The view you ascribe to me, I have never held. I have never viewed
"pictures"
as being a reductionist idea, and one that is inherently dismissive or
stigmatizing. (I think you may have read too much into that).
But perhaps this idea is something of a difference: the whole idea of
"picturing" is elitist in nature. This is because some pictures are indeed dull
in some minds (or circumstances), while others are not.
In fact, the key to enlightening a person is first to let him or her see that
the phenom of picturing is taking place. Once one sees this (in his or her own
mind), this is Step 1 of being a more insightful individual. The next step is
to
learn to partake of the pictures that others have formed (especially those that
are regarded as noteworthy). Or, simply, to see other possible pictures. And
this involves an aesthetic of some kind (call it: the aesthetic of the
conceptually appreciable. Heck, maybe call it "picture tasting" since the
metaphor of food works right now). And, so, the final step is for a person to
become especially agile and refined at indulging what we might call, "picture
orientations." Many times we might reject an idea or even a whole orientation
because we simply have become unfulfilled or unmoved by its "picture of
account."
This is an elitist thing. People who cannot do it well are forced only to do
analysis -- hoping THAT shows them the answer. This really is the difference
between the analytic philosophers and those who have properly learnt
Wittgenstein. The analytics live in a world where mathematically-oriented brain
skills are thought to be the thing that produces the big answers. What it
produces is a meaningless bore. It is, in fact, the very reason why
Wittgenstein's views culminated in the way that they did. What once was a
logical picture of the world, partitioned from the unsayable, becomes now a
contingent, cognitive picture, subject to manipulation of the creative or
insightful intellect, bound only by what is possible or what can "work" in the
form of life (previously, the world).
2. You write: "To get into debates, going beyond describing the role that,
e.g. Lavoisier's picture plays, into hand-waving and desk-pounding over whether
it is "actual" is to go down the path of the "battle-cries" between Realists
and
Idealists, as per Zettel."
I don't quite agree. My sense is that one can and should, when appropriate, do
more with "pictures" than be descriptive. In being therapeutic with them, one
would come to see what other pictures entail -- and one might ultimately
develop
a very keen insight over the picturing process. Indeed, what is it that an
atheist who becomes spiritual does, but leave his or her dismal and stale
account of the God story behind into something he or she could not see? You do
remember the times that Wittgenstein thought that atheists were
as repulsively narrow minded as were simple-minded Bible-thumpers? The problem
in each case is not one of the "battle cry" -- the problem is simply that the
picture is dull. Remember all of the times that Wittgenstein was revolted by
political discourse, by analytic philosophy, by false philosophic problems, by
the fake nature of the being a philosophy professor, etc. etc. Why did this man
walk the earth in disgust of so many things?
It was because, simply, he could see their pictures -- could see through them,
as it were. And his were better, because he taken his life to sit and think
about them (and had greater abilities in this respect). Wittgenstein always
noted that his greatest gift was taking over the thoughts of another person. If
he entered the chain of thoughts of others, he could see where their mistakes
were. He once said that this was his major intellectual gift.
3. I stopped reading at this point in the mail: "What is the criterion for
having correctly identified the picture that guides someone?" This is a good
topic! But I have to run out of the office. I'll try back later tonight for
more.
P.S. -- nice job on your mail.
Regards and thanks.
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:
