[lit-ideas] What Wittgenstein Could See
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:02:34 EDT
Malcolm's "Wittgenstein" -- how faithful to the original?
R. Paul quotes:
>'I can see you know nothing about rocks.' [Wittgenstein, as quoted by Norman
>Malcolm]
Malcolm's apocriphal quote reminds me of Humpty Dumpty (in Lewis Carroll,
"Through the looking glass"), and makes me wonder if Wittgenstein was a
behaviourist (or else Malcolm is misquoting).
The Humpty Dumpty quote:
`In winter, when the fields are white,
I sing this song for your delight --
"Only I don't sing it,' he added, as an explanation. 'I see you don't,' said
Alice. `If you can see whether I'm singing or not, you've sharper eyes than
most,' Humpty Dumpty remarked severely. Alice was silent."
The Wittgenstein quote:
"I can see you know nothing about rocks".
Different emphasis:
b. "I can _see_ you know nothing about rocks".
c. "I can _see_ you _know_ nothing about rocks."
For Gettier (and Plato, etc), to 'know' is a _spiritual_ thing, while 'see'
is a physiological thing (at least for Aristotle). One solution is that 'see'
is used _figuratively_. Note Wittgenstein's guardedness -- reported: "I _can_
see (you know nothing about rocks), rather than "I _do_ see you know nothing
about rocks"). If one wants to be more pedantic: there's the extra problem
that what Wittgenstein reported _could_ see was a totally negative _fact_ (to
wit: that Malcolm knew nothing about rocks).
Cheers,
J. L.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: