[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 21:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
... alright J. Back home. Let me give some additional replies to you.
1. How do you know you have found the person's "picture."
It's difficult to talk about how to find a picture, because it isn't, say, a
muffin recipe. You couldn't, e.g., run a three point test to find it. Finding
it
is a skill or aptitude not unlike having music ability (an ear for music). If
you have beheld another's idea to the point where he or she completely agrees
with how you have arranged it, an insightful person will have the picture then
and there -- for you cannot command another's idea without it. (Cf. the
difference between those who half understand an idea and resort, therefore, to
analytic devices as a means to understand. They say: "your definition is
wrong,"
or, "the logic doesn't follow." These tools are always problematic in
comparison).
Analytic folks live under the false impression that arguments are understood by
such things as premises and structure. So that, e.g., showing a person what
they
do with premises ("scoring the argument") gets to the heart of the matter.
Wittgensteinians know that the true edifice of any "argument" lies in the
picture one has that facilitates the matter. One knows the picture of another
when one can "live" the other person's idea. When one can, e.g., "become the
argument." (Cf: the skills accessed by some in theater. Not too far off as a
kind of thing).
Note also the role that simile plays in revealing a picture. The simile is to
the premise what the picture is to the point, across different levels of
insight.
Also, let me say this. One of the ways a person can increase their skills at
finding pictures is to be a professor and teach students. Because we all know
that the minds of the young are only developing in their ability to picture. In
a way, this is the beauty of college: the minds are open and receptive to being
shown better picturing skills (though some, of course are not -- the ones with
poor character or low ability). I think this statement is quite true:
the adage about age and wisdom has something to do with the ability to form
better pictures.
2. When to use the "therapy."
I agree with you that some pictures should not be messed with.
Also, I think your "dilemma for the Wittgensteinian interventionist" is simply
an exceptional point. Really, a great point. I do, of course, have a different
vision. I fear your point makes therapy available only for those who are asking
for it -- like a Priest waiting for one to ask for confession. I think, in a
sense, it would put Wittgensteinians in a closet (or have that effect). My own
view sees therapy as being licensed whenever the person asserts something as a
proposition, asking, as it were, to show its validity. I think that is the way
Wittgenstein treated Moore. Moore did not come to confession. Every philosopher
who takes a paper to the podium asks for "therapy" in my book.
3. The relationship of the picture to the merit of the idea.
I don't agree with this statement: "Being a picture is neither here nor there
in
terms of the merit of an idea." The answer is: it depends upon the picture (and
the idea). I think in many cases you will find that a shallow picture leads to
a
simplistic idea. Goodness: don't all the really poor ideas suffer from this?
(I
think we could flesh this one out better with examples of argument -- not of
Wittgenstein, but in general).
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:
