[lit-ideas] Re: The Order of Aurality ratification of fiction
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:12:39 -0500
Robert wrote:
"The first sentence [i.e. 'For Wittgenstein, any language is, in
principle, open to understanding by any language user'] might be close
to what Wittgenstein's views would look like after having been run
through a Cuisinart, ... What troubles me is the generality of the two
sentences in quotes. It's as if 'scholars,' or 'philosophers' had
pretty much agreed that there are some main theses or doctrines in the
Investigations, but were quarreling over just what they were and what
form they should take. Let me suggest that this is not a fruitful way
to approach the Investigations. The book is neither a collection of
aphorisms, nor an extended philosophical argument concerning one or
two clearly defined positions; such arguments having pretty much the
the form of philosophical treatises which are full of therefors and
hences and thus-we-may-concludes. A warning of where philosophers go
wrong can be found in the Blue Book, where he calls attention to their
'craving for generality,' and their 'contempt for the particular case'
(something he accuses Socrates of). He resists that craving, and
scorns such contempt, in his later writings. 'Don't think, but look,'
he says, admonishing Socrates' ghost. Enough. I am not made for a
discussion of Wittgenstein's theses or principles, so I will withdraw,
and leave the subject matter to those who are."
While I am very much sympathetic to Robert's point about the dangers
of the 'craving for generality', I don't think this should lead to the
dismissal of generalities, even in the case of Wittgenstein's
writings. There is a role for generalities, though I would agree with
Wittgenstein, that this role is not nearly as significant as most
philosophers believe.
In this light, I will re-assert my original claim that, in general,
for Wittgenstein, any language is, in principle, open to understanding
by any language user. I generalized from the more specific argument
that there can be no private language, because it would be impossible
to learn, and it would never be clear to oneself that one is following
the rules of that language. If all language is public, it is therefore
observable to any other language user. Now, in practice, there will be
limitations. There are limits to understanding itself, so that, for
example, the child will find it virtually impossible to understand
quantum physics, and very few humans understand what it is required to
have to hunt and kill for all of one's food. These limits are not the
result of there being some private experience that accompanies being a
physicist or a lion, but rather the consequence of the unfamiliarity
of these forms of life. However, a child may grow up to study physics
and circumstances may dictate that an individual have to learn how to
hunt for their food, like a lion. In both of these cases, the
individual may learn to understand quantum physics and learn to
understand lions.
Now, this may be 'Cuisinart' thinking, but then I am not sure what isn't.
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
Other related posts:
