[C] [Wittrs] therapy and grammatical investigations (for ABoncampagni)
- From: Übersichtlichkeit <ubersicht@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:18:44 -0500
In _Zettel_, we find:
472. Plan for the treatment of psychological concepts.
Psychological verbs characterized by the fact that the third person of
the present is to be verified by
observation, the first person not.
Sentences in the third person present: information. In the first
person present: expression. ((Not quite right.))
The first person of the present akin to an expression.
Sensations: their inner connexions and analogies.
All have genuine duration. Possibility of giving the beginning and the
end. Possibility of their being
synchronized, of simultaneous occurrence.
All have degrees and qualitative mixtures. Degree: scarcely
perceptible--unendurable.
In this sense there is not a sensation of position or movement. Place
of feeling in the body: differentiates
seeing and hearing from sense of pressure, temperature, taste and pain.
----------------------------------------------------------
Question: must a grammatical investigation subserve a therapeutic aim,
i.e. one of resolving a specific confusion?
(Some of my misgivings about questions like this are likely evidenced
by my enthusiasm for the "vaccine" simile Ms. Boncampagni shared with
us.)
Must such an investigation, even if it is not addressed to a
particular individual grappling with a particular confusion, at least
be undertaken with the aim of averting a particular misunderstanding?
Certainly, some of Wittgenstein's remarks, especially those mentioning
"therapy" or making comparisons between his method and
psycho-analysis, do suggest as much. Or rather, they have suggested as
much to many of his readers.
It is also true that in reading his remarks asking, "To whom is this
addressed? To what position would this be relevant? What
misunderstanding might this avert? What confusion might this
alleviate?" are all questions the answering of which often gives not
only an organization but a motivation to what might otherwise seem
rambling or pointless.
But must such questions always be appropriate?
In this passage from _Zettel_ have we "caught" Wittgenstein doing
something contrary to his professed method? And is it an aberration?
Or is it merely a case we'd have more trouble explaining away?
In most cases, we can assume that he must be addressing a particular
thinker. Or at least a particular puzzle or misunderstanding. But if
we don't assume that then there's no reason to view this passage as
exceptional.
My question: what gives philosophy its impetus and its form, if it is
not the construction of theories? Many readings of the later
Wittgenstein simply assumed, his eccentric claims to the contrary
notwithstanding, that a theory could be extracted from his remarks.
Those who now lean on the therapeutic metaphor find the motivation and
organization in the puzzles, confusions, misunderstandings, or
specific troubled individuals to whom the remarks are addressed.
I propose that there is another set of metaphors that can accommodate
what is right about the therapeutic reading while avoiding some of the
pitfalls. And it can accommodate remarks like the one that introduced
this missive.
Setting out to "shew the fly out of the fly-bottle" or helping someone
(perhaps oneself) who says, "I don't know my way about" are both
consistent with the therapeutic metaphors but they also can serve as a
bridge. Consider the Preface to _Philosophical_Investigations_ with
its talk of "travel over a wide field of thought criss-cross in every
direction" and of "sketches of landscapes which were made in the
course of these long and involved journeyings."
One can imagine then how such journeys might be in the service of
therapy without always having a therapeutic purpose as the immediate
concern. Consider also:
"Language contains the same traps for everyone; the immense network of
well-kept // passable // false paths. And thus we see one person after
another walking the same paths and we know already where he will make
a turn, where he will keep going on straight ahead without noticing
the turn, etc. etc. Therefore wherever false paths branch off I should
put up signs which help one get by the dangerous places." (BT 424)
What I want to suggest is that such journeys, such sketches may be
connected to therapeutic goals in a few ways at least:
1. As vaccination, as suggests Ms. Boncampagni's professor.
Deliberately and mindfully traveling down false paths so as to
recognize them in the future, thereby treating oneself.
2. Following Jung's "wounded healer" archetype, being able to better
recognize another's confusion on the basis of one's own intimate
experience with these issues.
3. As a basis for theorizing not about philosophical topics but about
the methods of treating philosophical ailments - diagnosis, etiology,
prognosis, treatment.
4. To stock and organize the medicine chest, not by the ailments one
wishes to treat but by the affinities between various treatments.
I think this last may be an especially useful way to approach remarks
like Z 472.
JPDeMouy
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [C] [Wittrs] therapy and grammatical investigations (for ABoncampagni) - Übersichtlichkeit
