[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:
