[Wittrs] Gettier, Wittgenstein & Silence
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 19:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
... one of the things I find interesting about this Gettier thing that has been
brought up recently, are two "facts." One is that Gettier apparently never
published anything, except his "Gettier problem" paper. The other is that he
apparently considered himself, at least initially, to be Wittgensteinian. (At
least, according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Gettier).
I've always wondered the relationship that silence has upon self-proclaimed
Wittgensteinians? Imagine a formalistically trained academic who had, early on,
come to see Wittgenstein's light. It wouldn't be inconceivable at all that this
influence would discourage his or her publishing efforts. This is true of any
academic, I think. When your thought become re-oriented, so much of what the
club does that is its "busy work" is seen in such a different light. The idea
is that there is not much out there that is "truly relevant." And if you cannot
make that kind of contribution, your silence is seen as something more noble
than those who "play act" their way in the academic social circle. To
Wittgensteinians, intellectual pretense is an abomination; sincerity, honesty
and usefulness are the virtues.
I can easily see a Wittgensteinian wanting to quiet a discussion, and,
therefore, not wishing to publish. And if your only contribution would be to
show that the discussion needed quieted, you have these problems: (a) those not
sharing your lights won't see it, and won't consider your work to be "methods;"
(b) ordinary proofs of such a thing are "out the window" to begin with; and (c)
the industry disfavors such an idea. Not to mention the level-shame you'll get.
So, you slog out some company product, get your tenure, and go about in silence
showing kids their sums -- knowing all along that this is what truly matters
most for your particular situation, in the larger scheme of things. It's like
Wittgenstein wanting to quit intellectual work to be a school teacher or to
work as a laborer in Russia. (I myself have often had sentiments of just
wanting to go work for the Post Office). These sentiments come from the idea
that knowing Wittgenstein well means that many, many problems are dissolved and
that numerous discussions need quieted.
Please note: I'm not at all attributing anything here to Gettier -- I know
nothing of him at all. I'm just wondering about the two said "facts" and about
the relationship in general.
You will note, of course, that the relationship doesn't seem to apply to the
industry of "Wittgenstein expositors." One of several things could apply here.
One is that the expositors are doing historical work and stuff like, "this is
what he really meant" -- and that these efforts ARE relevant. The other is
that some disciples are, shall we say, of another cloth -- or perhaps only use
Wittgenstein to launch the agendas they are REALLY faithful to (e.g., POMO,
behaviorism, etc.). And still others, perhaps, are just gassing under
the auspices of the label (who knows)?
FWIW, my problem was never with "historical Gettier;" it was with "the Gettier
problem" not ever being one. And with the ammunition it gave
philosophy-the-social-club to perpetuate an irrelevant conversation -- not, of
course, as a kind of training (karate), but in and of itself.
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://tinyurl.com/3eatnrx
Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs ;
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Gettier, Wittgenstein & Silence - Sean Wilson
