Robert wrote: "Despite Phil's posting some paragraphs from Samuel Wheeler's book in which the two are compared, I'd have to say, flat out, that Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations cannot be put in a nutshell or stuffed into any other epitomizing device; no more can the Tractatus, although it usually gets ignored when one tries to compare Wittgenstein's work with something else." The fact that the works of Wittgenstein cannot be "put in a nutshell" does not mean that they cannot be compared to the writings of other philosophers. PI and TLP belong to the philosophical tradition and therefore necessarily stand in relationships to other philosophical texts. A responsible philosophical reader of Wittgenstein will acknowledge the complexity of these texts while also acknowledging that they are not sui generis. If PI and TLP, due to their inability to be easily summarized, cannot be compared to any other philosophical texts, then why is this not true of most other classical philosophical text, like Plato's 'Republic' or Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'? To suggest that the writings of Wittgenstein should be treated differently from other philosophical texts strikes me as being unhelpful. The style of TLP and PI may be different from the First Critique, but so also is the 'Republic'. Pointing out the similarities between Wittgenstein and Derrida may not capture the whole of either Wittgenstein's or Derrida's thought, but it can prove helpful in clarifying a perspective on a particular issue that has occupied the philosophical tradition for millennia. With this end in mind, I have trouble understanding Robert's resistance to comparing the writings of Wittgenstein to the writings of other philosophers. Sincerely, Phil Enns ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html