[lit-ideas] Was Wittgenstein a Wittgensteinian?

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:26:33 -0400 (EDT)

McEvoy discusses
 
"The world is all that is the case"
 
and brings the issue of interpreting Witters -- (some passages extracted  
below).
 
Assuming, as we perhaps we shouldn't, that Witters is talking to himself,  
as they say -- does this mean --
 
"what W seeks to show by what he says is not said by what he says" --
 
that Witters is hiding info to himself.

More importantly, is this inability of lingo to say what it shows --  
analytic and a priori, or synthetic and a matter of empirical failure?
 
And who is Witters, qua Wittgensteinian, arguing against?
 
Cheers,
 
Speranza

In a message dated 6/17/2014 1:57:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
But there is problem with Wittgenstein  given the saying-showing dichotomy 
that runs through his work: for who but  someone alerted to this dichotomy 
would realise that when the Tractatus begins  "The world is all that is the 
case" it may be added parenthetically "(though  these words show the truth 
rather than say something with sense)" or that this  parenthetical may be 
appended throughout the Tractatus? Likewise, the  saying-showing dichotomy, 
which I suggest continues in Investigations, means a  reader can often 
understand the words used but struggle to see Wittgenstein's  point - because 
what W 
seeks to show by what he says is not said by what he  says. 

One problem here may be communicative (I would say Gr*ceian) in  nature.

Suppose Witters did write, as he did:

"The world is all  that is the case."

In "Meaning", H. Paul G. wants to retranslate Peirce's  theory of signs. 
What did Witters mean?

Could Witters have meant  something "in the absence of an audience"? (vide: 
"H. Paul G. without an  audience").

Apparently, most of the stuff that will later comprise TLP  Witters did 
write 'in the trenches', so I don't think he had a particular  addressee in 
mind -- other than himself.

So, let us assume that Witters  is telling Witters:

i. The world is all that is the case.

McEvoy's  arguments above seem to fit, better, a scenario where Witters is 
trying to  communicate (i) to some addressee, and fail, in that there may be 
more to (i)  than the saying of (i). 

what Witters, McEvoy tells us, 

>seeks  to show by what he says is not said by what he says.

So, assuming that  Witters -- is he hiding info from his self?
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: