[Wittrs] Re: Stuart Mirsky's Review of McGuinness' Young Ludwig
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:57:46 -0000
Brendan writes: " Wittgenstein writes in his preface that his Philosophical
Investigations stands against and with the Tractatus, I would like to emphasize
the 'WITH' part, how much of the Tratatus is in Philosophical Investigations?"
Here are the relevant portions from the preface to the PI (which I now keep on
my desk, since it comes up so often on this list). Note that he doesn't say
"with" but "by contrast with" which is rather a different claim!
"Four years ago I had occasion to re-read my first book (the Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus) and to explain its ideas to someone. It suddenly seemed
to me that I should publish those old thoughts and the new ones together: that
the latter could be seen in the right light only by contrast with and against
the background of my old way of thinking.
For since beginning to occupy myself with philosophy again, sixteen years ago,
I have been forced to recognize grave mistakes in what I wrote in the first
book. I was helped to realize these mistakes -- to a degree which I myself am
hardly able to estimate -- by the criticism which my ideas encountered from
Frank Ramsey, whit whom I discussed them in innumerable conversations during
the last two years of his life. Even more than to this -- always certain and
forcible -- criticism I am indebted to that which a teacher of this university,
Mr. P. Sraffa, for many years practiced on my thoughts. I am indebted to this
stimulus for the most consequential ideas of this book."
Note that we have to be careful here when excerpting words or phrases from a
quotation. It's important not to lose the context in which any word is said.
Certainly in this case there is little evidence that Wittgenstein, in
referencing his earlier work is either endorsing the views that work
represented or suggesting that his later views require endorsement, in any way,
of his earlier views.
My own conclusion from reading his own statement on this and from what I know
of his later work is that while there are certainly points of continuity, in
large part his later thinking represents a dramatic departure from what he
formerly held. Certainly, if that were not the case, he would have had no
reason to describe his earlier work as containing "grave mistakes".
SWM
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, brendan downs <wittrs@...> wrote:
>
>
> Reply to SWM
>
>
> Wittgenstein writes in his preface that his Philosophical Investigations
> stands against and with the Tractatus, I would like to emphasize the "WITH"
> part, how much of the Tratatus is in Philosophical Investigations? I don't
> think Wittgenstein was naive enough to think that the actual world consisted
> not of "things" but "facts", but how can we rationalize such a statement or
> truely make sense of it. Wittgenstein is one of the Godfathers of the
> linguistic paradigm created by figures such as Frege, Moore and Russell which
> was a revolt against the Absolute Idealists. Wittgenstein was a Conceptualist
> Idealist exemplified by the statement "The limits of my language are the
> limits of my world" I illerate again, I don't think Wittgenstein believed
> that the only thing that existed was linguistic entities and I qualify this
> my the use of "my world" not "the world". This is Idealist talk as in
> comparison to say ordinary language and idea-ist talk "I have a red idea",
> this kind of talk is meant to resolve contradictions as in a observation
> report of type "it is a round coin but it appears epllitical". So in what
> sense or lingo is Wittgenstein Talking? It is possible to conceive he is not
> talking of the world but the world of linguistic philosophy conceived by him.
> i.e. he has changed hats of ordinary language talk and placed on the cap of a
> linguistic philosopher as in contrast to say of a thereotical physicists i.e
> the physists talks of tables consisting of electrons and not wood or to we
> have two tables? one made of electrons and one made of wood, I think you see
> my distinction. The common mistake for realists is to think that certain
> types of idealists are talking about the real world instead of say a
> paradigm. In certain light we may conceive of Wittgenstein defining a
> paradigm that the realists don't understand an, example of this can be is
> that we can have a second reading of the Tractatus and possibly Philosopical
> Investigations. I think that the early statement about natural scientific
> statements, not scientific generalizations that he may have been eluding to
> is the problem of negative existentials, in that we just pass over talking of
> them.
>
>
>
> Brendan
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Feeling the financial pinch? Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand
> http://money.msn.co.nz
>
WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
Other related posts:
