[C] [Wittrs] Re: How to Regard On Certainty
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:03:56 -0800 (PST)
... I was thinking about you Stuart, on this thread. Because a little voice in
the back of my head was wondering whether I was contradicting myself in an
earlier assertion with you regarding the value of everything he had written or
said (letters, lectures, diaries, etc.). Being a student
of philosophy-through-biography in general, and of
Wittgenstein-through-biography in particular, I would be inclined to agree with
you that there is some great value in seeing Wittgenstein "with his guard
down." I see this all the time when leafing through student lecture notes,
which I have to date found to be wonderful.
But here is what concerns me. On occasion, Wittgenstein would begin a train of
thought, and then would abandon it or call it rubbish. If, as he progressed
with his thoughts, the abandoned "rubbish" retained that verdict, knowing
about it as such would nonetheless be helpful biographical information -- not
only to see what he had in mind as a contrast for NOT RUBBISH, but to see when
he began to change and so forth. HOWEVER, (big point coming), we may run into
some problems where the TRAIN STOPS. That is, what would Wittgenstein had done
with his OC notebook entries? Just polish them? Just make them more clear? Or
would we have seen segments or lines of inquiry get the "rubbish" stamp, only
to see new flowers grow from the scorched earth? One thing about Wittgenstein:
the thunder of "rubbish" usually followed with the sowing of new seeds.
But anyway, I don't think there is anything in OC that represents a rogue or a
weed, as it were. At least, not as a chain of thought (line of inquiry). I
suppose the moral of the story is simply to be careful placing emphasis on any
discreet quote or choice of language, as one does with his lectures. One could
only read it properly "in context."
The only reason why I brought it up today is that, for years, I had never taken
OC to be less of a prepared work than, say, Zettel or even PI. What I had not
understood, I guess, was that OC was not a typescript. I guess for some reason
I had always thought that it was. It was not until recently -- like in the last
year -- that I even knew that the majority of OC (from pages 38-90) was written
in his last month-and-a-half of his life. And I guess what fundamentally
concerned me about this was that all of his other spontaneous works -- letters,
lectures, diary entries -- have the status of being just that. OC, however --
at least on the shelves of bookstores -- pretends to be something other
than diary-sort of writing. I think it would be good if people who indulged it
at least had that fact front and center in their minds.
Again, none of this is to assert that OC is deficient; it is merely to assert
that it is not a typescript (or even a manuscript).
Yours, on a bit of a tightrope ...
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
