[C] [Wittrs] Re: On When the New Wittgenstein Arrived (Again)
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:06:07 -0800 (PST)
J:
1. Philosophical Grammar was the product of work he started in the Fall term of
1930. The ideas that show up in 33 are being first aired in 30 (or at least
their incarnation). I would not draw the line at the completion of PG, I would
draw it when those ideas are swimming in the head. To really know the specifics
of the development, we'd need to see lecture notes from the Michalmas term
in 1930, and compare them to Alice Ambrose and others. Are the 1930 notes
around somewhere?
2. I don't have the Ambrose lecture book handy right now (its at home), but the
preface to that book indicates that the notes from 1932 are the most unreliable
on her part, because she only had her own notes as a source. The other years
had other sources. Finally, she does mention that the notes reflect only "her
understanding" of what was said. (Also, some of the "notes" are actually
reconstructions -- she went back and wrote out sentences for them. I think they
ought to be regarded as a kind of testimony).
[Tangent -- Still, my examination of those notes (which were from lectures
around 1934) found them immensely helpful. I had never seen Wittgenstein
presented so clearly before. However, one of the criticisms might be that the
points have been made simple. I haven't read enough to form a judgment, but I
do know that I was thoroughly enjoying what I was reading. I'll be getting back
to that soon].
3. I'm not quite getting what you are on some of this. But I'm not looking at
it closely (sorry if I'm off base).
> The phrase
> "length of interval" has its
> sense in virtue of the way we determine it,
and differs
> according to the method
> of measurement
I was thinking meaning is use, here.
> We cannot
> say that two bangs two seconds apart differ only in degree
> from those an hour
> apart,
I had understood this to say that one is a psychological estimate, the other
isn't. This is the sense of interval. He's taking what are thought to be
analytic ideas -- length, interval -- and showing that they have senses which
are conveyed only "in action."
4. Please remember, the point at which the caterpillar turns to a butterfly is
not mine. I am repeating what I read in Monk. I'm obviously not saying -- and
neither was Monk -- that there was not continued development (which there
surely was). What I am saying is that the critical period when he broke
from the Tractarian ideas (that he did break from) happened in late 1930. There
is all sorts of historical conversation about it. Imagine an iceberg that
cracks in half, with part II sailing away. That portion of the ice broke and
fell away in late 30. What broke it was the new vision. He spent the next
several years trying to explicate, clarify and polish it.
Regards and thanks.
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:
