Copyright © 2014 Bruce W. Hauptli
The second paper for this course should be a “critical exposition” of an important element of Wittgenstein’s views and theories in his Philosophical Investigations, or in his Tractatus. You may choose one of the following assigned areas, one of the topics from the list of First Paper Topics (one which you did not write your first paper on, of course), or you may seek my permission to write on another area. Such critical expositions try to both clarify the theory or view in question and consider its adequacy, sense, utility, etc. The interpretation of Wittgenstein’s theories is not an easy job, and I have recommended a number of secondary sources for many of the topics. A perfectly appropriate “strategy” for papers here is to examine another individual’s exposition: clarify the views of Wittgenstein, the interpretation which the author attributes to Wittgenstein, and then critically consider whether you feel it “fits the text,” and whether its critical perspective on the original text is appropriate or correct. In writing such a paper you must not only clarify the views of the author(s) in question, you must also offer your own critical assessment of whether we should accept, reject, or remain neutral regarding this orientation, view, or position.
As the first paper assignment indicated, one of my purposes in requiring you to write these papers is to offer you the opportunity to perfect your ability to describe carefully a complex position and argument to others. Another of my purposes is to provide you with the opportunity to push beyond the level of reading and mastering the required material for the course. Here my goal is to provide you with an opportunity to engage in critical reflection upon the readings (or upon related readings and issues), and to provide you with feedback on your critical scrutinies.
One of my vehicles for accomplishing these goals is to require that you write more than one paper. While your second paper will be on a topic differing from your first one, many of the comments I made on your first paper could be helpful to you in perfecting your compositional, expository, and critical skills. These comments will only be useful if you give them some serious scrutiny however. I strongly encourage you to look over both the typed comments and the marginal comments throughout your first paper. Few students have such an exceptional ability that they can not benefit from such an examination, and to encourage you to take the comments seriously, I want you to know that before I read your next paper I will be reviewing my file with these comments on your first paper. I expect that your editing of your drafts of your next paper will be done in light of these comments. You should seriously endeavor to avoid any of the sorts of compositional errors I have identified, and to the extent that it is called for, I also encourage you to work to make your next exposition and critique yet clearer and more forceful.
Areas for Critical Scrutiny:
1. Critically examine one of the following articles or books which deals with Wittgenstein's private language argument:
(a) "Can There Be A Private Language?" A.J., Ayer, Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society v. 28 (1954), pp. 63-76 [reprinted in Pitcher's Wittgenstein; and in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 9 (The Private Language Argument), edited by J. Canfield—both are on reserve in the library].(b) "Can There Be A Private Language?" R. Rhees, Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society v. 28 (1954), pp. 77-94 [reprinted in Pitcher's Wittgenstein; and in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 9 (The Private Language Argument), edited by J. Canfield—both are on reserve in the library].
(c) Critically compare and contrast the treatments of Ayer and Rhees (above).
(d) "Wittgenstein on Privacy," J. Cook, The Philosophical Review v. 74 (1965), pp. 281-314 [reprinted in Pitcher's Wittgenstein; and in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 9 (The Private Language Argument), edited by J. Canfield—both are on reserve in the library].
(e) "Wittgenstein on Private Language," N. Garver (in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 20 (1960), pp. 389-396.
(f) Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1982).
(g) The Private Language Problem: A Philosophical Dialogue, Saunders and Henge (N.Y.: Random House, 1976).
(h) "Wittgenstein On Private Language," J. Hintikka, Mind 1969 [reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 9 (The Private Language Argument), edited by J. Canfield which is on reserve in the library].
(i) "Wittgenstein, Privileged Access, and Incommunicability," R. Rorty the American Philosophical Quarterly 1970 [reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 9 (The Private Language Argument) edited by J. Canfield—which is on reserve in the library].
If you wish to critically examine an article or book on this argument which is not on this list, you must check with me first.
2. Critically assess the later Wittgenstein's response to skepticism and idealism—clarify and consider the adequacy of Wittgenstein's treatment of skepticism and idealism. The following may be helpful:
(a) Wittgenstein and Classical Scepticism," Robert Fogelin, International Philosophical Quarterly v. 21 (1981), pp. 3-15.(b) "Wittgenstein and Skepticism," James Bogen, Philosophical Review v. 83 (1974), pp. 364-373, reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 8 (Knowing, Naming, Certainty, and Idealism) edited by J. Canfield which is on reserve in the library].
(c) "Wittgenstein and Idealism," B.A.O. Williams, in Understanding Wittgenstein, edited by G. Vesey [reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 8 (Knowing, Naming, Certainty, and Idealism) edited by J. Canfield which is on reserve in the library].
(d) "Knowing and Acknowledging," S. Cavell in his Must We Mean What We Say? [reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 8 (Knowing, Naming, Certainty, and Idealism) edited by J. Canfield which is on reserve in the library].
3. Critically assess Wittgenstein's fideism—clarify the fideistic (or relativistic) aspects in the later Wittgenstein's thought and consider whether they are "real" or "apparent" and whether or not they present any problem for Wittgenstein. The following is especially relevant:
(a) "Wittgensteinian Fideism," Kai Nielsen, in Philosophy v. 42 (1967), pp. 191-209 [reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 14 (Aesthetics, Ethics, and Religion), edited by J. Canfield which is on reserve in the library].(b) "Religious Beliefs and Language Games," D.Z. Phillips, in Review of Metaphysics 1970 [reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 14 (Aesthetics, Ethics, and Religion), edited by J. Canfield which is on reserve in the library].
(c) Critically compare and contrast the treatments of Nielsen and Phillips (above).
4. Wittgenstein and Meta-Philosophy: clarify the metaphilosophic aspects in the later Wittgenstein's thought. The following are especially relevant:
(a) O.K. Bouwsma's "The Blue Book," Journal of Philosophy v. 58 (1961), pp. 141-162 [reprinted in The Philosophy of Wittgenstein v. 4 (The Later Philosophy—Views and Reviews) edited by J. Canfield which is on reserve in the library].5. Critically discuss Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance. You may find the following helpful:(b) Chapter 5 of P.M.S. Hacker's Insight and Illusion.
(c) J. Wisdom's "Ludwig Wittgenstein 1934-1937," and "A Feature of Wittgenstein's Technique," both in Wisdom's Paradox and Discovery.
Renford Bambrough, "Universals and Family Resemblances," in Introduction to Metaphysics: The Fundamental Questions, ed. Andrew Schonedinger (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1991), and Richard Grandy, "Universals or Family Resemblances,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy v. 4 (1979), ed. Peter French.
You may write a paper on any of the first paper topics which you did not write your first paper on. For your convenience, these topics are still available on the course web-site.
Your papers should be approximately 2000 words long (eight double-spaced typewritten pages of 250 words per page). This indication of length is meant as a guide to the student—papers much shorter than the indicated length are unlikely to have adequately addressed one of the assigned topics. Papers may, of course, be longer than the indicated length. I will be happy to read rough drafts and to discuss your ideas for your papers with you provided you give them prior to 3:30 on Friday, April 4. The papers should be typed and are due in my office by 4:15 P.M. on Monday, April 7. I am giving you the paper topics now so that you have at least two weekends to work on the paper. If you plan to wait till the last moment to write your paper, I recommend you review the Course Syllabus regarding penalties for late papers. Please review my policy on extensions, late papers, and plagiarism (contained in the course syllabus). Please also review my supplement Guide to Writing Philosophy Papers which is available on the class web-site.
Last revised on 03/25/2014.