Hauptli’s
Introduction to Wittgenstein
Copyright © 2014 Bruce W. Hauptli
I. Wittgenstein’s
Life (1889-1951):
Ludwig Wittgenstein was born in Vienna, Austria in 1889 (he
died in 1951). His family was a
prominent one (it was a noted patron of the arts, and frequent visitors to the
family home (“Palis Wittgenstein”) included Gustav Mahler, Bruno Walter,
Johannes Brahms, and Clara Schumann).
Wittgenstein’s great grandfather, Moses Mayer, worked for the
aristocratic Wittgenstein family, and took on that family’s name after the
Napoleonic degree of 1808 which demanded that Jews adopt a non Jewish surname.
Wittgenstein’s grandfather took the further step of adding the middle
name “Christian.” The family became
very prosperous, but Wittgenstein’s father, Karl was very independent, and was
committed to “making it on his own.”
He went to America, and when he returned he didn’t follow in the family
business (real estate, but pursued engineering.
He became a major Austrian manufacturer of iron and steel, and the family
friends included the Carnegies, Krupps, and Schwabs (who visited one another at
their various homes and country houses).
Ray Monk’s Ludwig Wittgenstein:
The Duty of Genius[1]
and William W. Bartley’s Wittgenstein[2]
provide excellent pictures of Wittgenstein’s life, and a good portion of this
introductory picture is drawn from these works.
Additional valuable accounts of his life include: Bruce Duffy’s
The World As I Found It (a
fascinating fictional biography), Norman Malcolm’s
Wittgenstein: A Memoir (which also has a biographical sketch written by G.H.
von Wright), and Stephen Toulmin and Alan Janik’s
Wittgenstein’s Vienna.[3]
I recommend any and all of these to you.
In 1902, Wittgenstein’s brother Hans who was a musical genius (and who
was gay) killed himself in Havana, Cuba.
In 1904 his brother Rudolf who was a student of chemistry (and who was
also gay) killed himself in Berlin because his companion had died and he found
life no longer worth living. These
events had a marked effect upon Ludwig.
At the age of 19 [in 1908], Wittgenstein went to Manchester University in
England to study engineering (he worked on the design of a propeller for jet
engines and held several design patents).
These studies were largely mathematical in nature, and led him to study
logic. One of his fellow students
recommended Bertrand Russell’s The
Principles of Mathematics, and reading this work had a transformative effect
upon Wittgenstein. He became
obsessed with “foundational” problems in mathematics, and he traveled to Jena to
discuss with Gottlob Frege whether he should study mathematics.
On the advice of Frege, he went to Cambridge University to consult
further with Bertrand Russell, and in 1912 he withdrew from Manchester
University and enrolled at Trinity College, Cambridge to work with Russell.
In a very short time Wittgenstein moved from being Russell’s student to
being his teacher, and Russell came to believe that any further progress in
formal logic would be made by Wittgenstein rather than by himself.[4]
At Cambridge Wittgenstein also met and befriended G.E. Moore, and J.M.
Keynes, and was elected to “The Apostles”—a select secret society that included
most of the male members of the Bloomsbury group.
In 1912 he met David Pinsent, perhaps his dearest friend (to whom he
dedicated the Tractatus), and they
made holiday trips to Iceland and Norway.
According to Norman Malcolm,
Pinsent found
Wittgenstein a difficult companion: irritable, nervously sensitive, often
depressed. But when he was cheerful
he was extremely charming.
Sometimes he was depressed by the conviction that his death was near at hand and
that he would not have time to perfect his new ideas in logic, sometimes by the
thought that perhaps his logical work was of no real value.
Even so, his general frame of mind was less morbid than before he had
come to Cambridge. For a number of
years previously there had hardly been a day, he told Pinsent, in which he had
not thought of suicide “as a possibility.”[5]
All accounts of Wittgenstein’s life portray him as
driven to do philosophy, as relentless in his pursuit for clarity
of thought, as unforgiving of sloppy thinking, as deeply pessimistic, as
obsessed with purity of thought and self, and as dissatisfied with his efforts.
William Bartley contends that his ascetic life-style and obsession with
purity was partially rooted in his views about sexuality (Wittgenstein was a
homosexual for whom, Bartley contends, sexuality and intellectual activity could
not mix—he saw sex as impure and thought as pure).
Wittgenstein was constantly dissatisfied with his writings and ideas
(though Russell, Moore, and others throughout his life encouraged him to publish
his notes), and he was also constantly afraid that he might die before he had
fully and clearly worked his ideas out.
In his Autobiography, Bertrand
Russell says:
he was perhaps the most perfect
example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate,
profound, intense, and dominating.
He had a kind of purity which I have never known equaled except by G.E. Moore.[6]
At the end of his first term at
Trinity, he came to me and said: “Do you think I am an absolute idiot?”
I said: “Why do you want to know?”
He replied: “Because if I am I shall become an aeronaut, but if I am not
I shall become a philosopher.” I
said to him: “My dear fellow, I don’t know whether you are an absolute idiot or
not, but if you will write me an essay during the vacation upon any
philosophical topic that interests you, I will read it and tell you.”
He did so, and brought it to me at the beginning of the next term.
As soon as I read the first sentence, I became persuaded that he was a
man of genius, and assured him that he should on no account become an aeronaut.
At the beginning of 1914 he came to see me in a state of great agitation
and said: “I am leaving Cambridge....”
“Why” I asked. “Because my
brother-in-law has come to live in London, and I can’t bear to be so near him.”
So he spent the rest of the winter in the far north of Norway.[7]
Later on in his autobiography (quoting a letter he had
written to a friend much earlier):
do you remember that at the
time...I wrote a lot of stuff about Theory of Knowledge, which Wittgenstein
criticized with the greatest severity?
His criticism...was an event of first-rate importance in my life, and
affected everything I have done since.
I saw he was right, and I saw that I could not hope ever again to do
fundamental work in philosophy. My
impulse was shattered, like a wave dashed to pieces against a breakwater.
I became filled with utter despair...I
had to produce lectures for America
[where he was going to lecture], but I took a metaphysical subject although I
was and am convinced that all fundamental work in philosophy is logical.
My reason was that Wittgenstein persuaded me that what wanted doing in
logic was too difficult for me. So
there was no really vital satisfaction of my philosophical impulse in that work,
and philosophy lost its hold no me.
That was due to Wittgenstein more that to the war.[8]
In 1913, to go back to the chronological story for the moment,
Wittgenstein’s father died and he inherited a very large fortune (his father had
placed much of this fortune in American bonds, and, by the end of the first
world war Ludwig was one of the richest men in Europe).
In that year, Wittgenstein left Cambridge since he found it distracting
as he tried to work through his new ideas in logic,
and
moved to Norway to live in a hut which he built for himself and to think in
seclusion. Before he left, he
dictated his “Notes on Logic” [1913] to Bertrand Russell because both he and
Russell wanted some record of the ideas that Wittgenstein had and was working
upon. Ray Monk notes that:
Wittgenstein’s feeling that he
might die before being able to publish his work intensified during his last week
[of an earlier vacation] in Norway, and prompted him to write Russell asking if
Russell would be prepared to meet him ‘as
soon as possible and give me time enough to give you a survey of the whole
field of what I have done up to now and if possible to let me make notes for
you in your presence’.
It is to this that we owe the existence of
Notes on logic, the earliest
surviving exposition of Wittgenstein’s thought.[9]
During his longer stay in Norway, Wittgenstein was visited
several times by G.E. Moore, and another set of notes was dictated there.[10]
As G.H. von Wright relates,
it was Wittgenstein’s habit to
write down his thoughts in notebooks.
The entries are usually dated, and thus they comprise a sort of diary.
The contents of an earlier notebook are often worked over again in a
later one. Sometimes he dictated to
colleagues and pupils. In the
spring of 1914 he dictated some thoughts on logic to Moore in Norway.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s he dictated to Schlick and Waismann.
The so-called Blue Book was dictated in conjunction with lectures at
Cambridge in the academic year 1933-4.
The so-called Brown Book was dictated privately to some pupils in 1934-5.[11]
In August of 1914, upon the outbreak of World War I, Wittgenstein joined
the Austrian army. During the war
his brother Paul, a brilliant piano player, lost an arm at the Russian front
(Paul remained a very accomplished pianist, and Ravel wrote his “Left Handed
Concerto” for him), David Pinsent died in battle, and in 1918 Wittgenstein’s
brother Kurt killed himself after his troops fled the field in dishonor.
During the war Wittgenstein further developed the logical ideas he had
worked on at Trinity and in Norway, and worked them into a book which he
tentatively called The Proposition.
His experiences at the Eastern Front intensified his
mystical and religious tendencies
giving his work the ethical, first-person metaphysical, and mystical final form
it has (earlier versions had concerned themselves almost exclusively with issues
of logic). As Ray Monk notes,
if Wittgenstein had spent the
entire war behind the lines, the
Tractatus would have remained what it almost certainly was in its first
inception of 1915: a treatise on the nature of logic.
The remarks in it about ethics, aesthetics, the soul and the meaning of
life have their origin in precisely the ‘impulse to philosophical reflection’
that Schopenhauer describes, an impulse that has as its stimulus a knowledge of
death, suffering, and misery.
Towards the end of March 1916 Wittgenstein was posted, as he had long
wished, to a fighting unit on the Russian front.
He was assigned to an artillery regiment attached to the Austrian Seventh
Army, stationed at the southernmost point of the Eastern Front, near the
Romanian border. In the few weeks
that elapsed before his regiment was moved up to the front line, he endeavored
to prepare himself, psychologically and spiritually, to face death.[12]
After the Russians withdrew from the war, his unit was
transferred to Italy, and Wittgenstein was captured.
While he was a prisoner of war, J.M. Keynes (a mutual friend of Russell
and Wittgenstein) was able to arrange for Wittgenstein to be able to correspond
with Russell, and Wittgenstein sent Russell a copy of his book.
Their correspondence shows how far apart their ideas had become, but
believing he had solved all
interesting philosophical problems, feeling an obligation to help Austria
recover from the war, and suffering from depression and serious internal
torments, Wittgenstein returned from the war and immediately gave away his
considerable inherited fortune.
Wittgenstein’s depressions at this stage in his life truly scared his family
members who agreed to his plans to dispose of his fortune not out of greed but
because they feared that he might do something utterly unpredictable if they did
not support his ideas. As Monk
notes:
the hardship suffered during the
war was not experienced by him as something from which he sought refuge, but as
the very thing that gave his life meaning.
To shelter from the storm in the comfort and security which his family’s
wealth and his own education could provide could provide would be to sacrifice
everything he had gained from struggling with adversity.
It would be to give up climbing mountains in order to live on a plateau.[13]
Wittgenstein then enrolled in a
teacher-training school and became a
grammar school teacher in rural Austria.
Between 1920 and 1926 he worked as an elementary school teacher in three
towns or villages, and while he was a successful teacher, the parents feared
both him and new the educational “reform movement,” and Wittgenstein was
eventually accused of extreme corporal punishment of students.[14]
It is clear that the people recognized him as an excellent teacher, but
his desire to further their education ran counter to the parent’s economic
needs—they needed their children working rather than studying.
Moreover the village people thought he was rich, socialist, non-Catholic,
and progressive. Wittgenstein’s
sojourn as a grammar school teacher seems to many utterly out of character, but
Bartley points out that:
confronted with the
economically ruined strip of land now known as the Austrian Republic, the
Wittgenstein family immediately engaged in wide-ranging social work.
The family had a long tradition of public service, which most of its
members treated, literally, as a duty....In the prewar days, the Wittgensteins
were prominent patrons of the arts....Karl Wittgenstein...built the great
Viennese exhibition hall, the Secession, and patronized many important
contemporary painters. In 1914,
over a year after his father’s death, Ludwig made his own famous gift of 100,000
Kronen to Ludwig von Ficker to aid poets and writers, explaining to Flicker that
he did so according to the custom of his class.
In the immediate postwar years, however, social welfare more than the
arts engaged the attention of Karl Wittgenstein’s children.
Herbert Hoover named Margarete Stonbrough [one of Ludwig’s sisters] his
personal representative for Austria in charge of work for the American Food
Relief Commission, a role which put her in close touch with socialist and other
political leaders....Ludwig’s eldest sister, Mining, opened a day school for
poor Viennese boys...and eventually helped him with his own pupils from the
countryside. In this context,
Wittgenstein’s decision to enter elementary school teaching...was hardly
eccentric.[15]
While
Wittgenstein was teaching, he had considerable difficulty securing a publisher
for his book. He corresponded with
Russell (who was then in China for several years), and, finally, with Russell’s
help it was published in 1921 as the
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.[16]
This work had an important influence upon
logical positivism.[17]
In 1926 a “wordbook” which Wittgenstein had developed for his grammar
school classes was published—it was the only other of his books which was
published while he was alive (his other non-posthumous works were a book review,
and two short philosophical essays).
Much of Wittgenstein’s work circulated in unpublished manuscripts
throughout his life, and these manuscripts had a major influence upon the
philosophic thought of the twentieth century).
After he quit teaching, Wittgenstein worked briefly as a gardener’s
assistant in a monastery at Hutteldorf near Vienna (he had considered entering
the monastery as he was attracted to the ascetic, pure, devoted life), and then
he acted as the co-architect of his sister’s house in Vienna.
This latter activity pulled him out of his deep depression.
By the summer of 1927, he was meeting regularly with a group of
philosophers lead by Morris Schlick (including Frederick Waismann, Rudolf
Carnap, and Herbert Feigel) that came to be known as the Vienna Circle.
They took Wittgenstein’s Tractatus
to be one of the foundational texts of their “movement,” and thought he was,
like them, a logical positivist.
As Ray Monk notes,
in March 1928 Brouwer
came to Vienna to deliver a lecture entitled “Mathematics, Science and
Language,” which Wittgenstein attended, together with Waismann and Feigel.
After it the three spent a few hours together in a cafe, and, reports
Feigel:
...it was fascinating to behold
the change that had come over Wittgenstein that evening...he became extremely
voluble and began sketching ideas that were the beginnings of his later
writings...that evening marked the return of Wittgenstein to strong
philosophical interest and activities.[18]
In 1929 Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge as a research student.
As von Wright notes, this was a
...somewhat unusual status for a
man whom many already regarded as one of the foremost living representatives of
his subject. The idea was that he should
work for a Ph.D. It turned out,
however, that he could count his pre-war residence at Cambridge as credit
towards the degree and could present his book...as a thesis.
He received his degree in June 1929.
The following year he was made a Fellow of Trinity College.[19]
Russell and Moore examined Wittgenstein for the Ph.D. at
one of Russell’s educational communes, and Russell’s account of this is of some
interest! A briefer account from
Monk will have to do here however:
as Russell walked into the
examination room with Moore, he smiled and said: ‘I have never known anything so
absurd in my life.’ The examination
began with a chat between old friends.
Then Russell, relishing the absurdity of the situation, said to Moore:
‘Go on, you’ve got to ask him some questions—you’re the professor.’
There followed a short discussion in which Russell advanced his view that
Wittgenstein was inconsistent in claiming to have expressed unassailable truths
by means of meaningless propositions.
He was, of course, unable to convince Wittgenstein, who brought the
proceedings to an end by clapping each of his examiners on the shoulder and
remarking consolingly: ‘Don’t worry, I know you’ll never understand it.’[20]
Wittgenstein began to lecture at Cambridge in 1930, and as von Wright
notes, his lecture style was hardly conventional:
he nearly always held them in his
own room or in the college rooms of a friend.
He had no manuscript or notes.
He
thought before the class.
The impression was of tremendous concentration.
The exposition usually led to a question, to which the audience were
supposed to suggest an answer. The
answers in turn became starting points for new thoughts leading to new
questions. It depended on the
audience, to a great extent, whether the discussion became fruitful and whether
the connecting thread was kept in sight from the beginning of one lecture to
another. Many members of his
audiences were highly qualified people in their various fields.
Moore attended Wittgenstein’s lectures for some years in the early 1930s.
Several of those who later became leading philosophers in England, the
United States, or Australia heard Wittgenstein lecture at Cambridge.[21]
Norman Malcolm rounds out this picture of Wittgenstein’s
lectures when he says of lectures delivered in 1946:
Wittgenstein lectured for
three terms that year on topics belonging to the philosophy of psychology.
I took notes for the first two or three lectures but gave up this
practice when I found that Wittgenstein was addressing a great many questions to
me and that it was impossible for me to say anything intelligent in reply if I
was occupied with writing. (Peter
Geach took notes of all the lectures, which are preserved.)
Wittgenstein said to me at the conclusion of one of the first classes
that he expected me to take an active part in the discussions.
I resolved to do my best, and throughout the year I made a great effort
to follow his thought during those meetings, an exertion that left my mind
utterly exhausted at the end of two hours.[22]
I.A. Richard’s poem “The Strayed Poet” provides another
recollection of Wittgenstein’s lectures.
Wittgenstein’s Fellowship lasted until 1935, and in 1936 he returned to
his hut in Norway where he endeavored to turn his notes and workbooks into what
was to be his second major work.
In 1938 Wittgenstein first returned to Vienna, but the unfolding events
there caused the family to, in effect, trade a substantial portion of its
fortune in return for being declared
Michlinges (individuals of mixed Jewish blood).
Wittgenstein found Vienna depressing, could not find work, and though he
wished to simply write, his finances were insufficient for this.
He, thus, returned to Cambridge to teach (though he really did not want
to do so). When G.E. Moore retired,
Wittgenstein decided to apply for the post of Professor of Philosophy.
As Monk notes:
by 1939 he was recognized
as the foremost philosophical genius of our time.
‘To refuse the chair to Wittgenstein,’ said C.D. Broad [no fan of his
philosophical orientation], ‘would be like refusing Einstein a chair of
Physics.’ Broad himself was no
great admirer of Wittgenstein’s work; he was simply stating a fact.
On 11 February Wittgenstein was duly elected Professor.
It was, inevitably, an occasion for both expressing pride and condemning
it. ‘Having got the professorship
is very flattering & all that’, he wrote to Eccles, ‘but it might have been very
much better for me to have got a job opening and closing [railroad] gates.
I don’t get any kick out of my position (except what my vanity &
stupidity sometimes gets).’ This in
turn helped with his application for British citizenship, and on 2 June 1939 he
received his British passport. No
matter how illiberal their policy on the admission of Austrian Jews, the British
government could hardly refuse citizenship to the professor of Philosophy at the
University of Cambridge.[23]
During the Second World War, Wittgenstein worked with a medical research
unit that was researching “shock,” first at a London hospital, and then in
Newcastle. Following this work, he
took a leave of absence and lived in Ireland talking to Rush Rhees (one of his
former students) and working to develop his notes and notebooks into his second
book.
In October of 1944 he returned to teaching at Cambridge and taught until
1947 when he retired to devote himself to writing and thinking.
He lived in Dublin, rural Ireland, Dublin again, and Cambridge.
He visited Malcolm in the United States.
Monk relates one account of Wittgenstein in America that is useful in
trying to complete this introductory picture of the man:
at the beginning of the autumn
term [1949] Malcolm took Wittgenstein along to a meeting of the graduate
students of philosophy at Cornell University.
His presence there, as John Nelson has recalled, had a tremendous impact.
‘Just before the meeting was to get underway’, Nelson writes, ‘Malcolm
appeared approaching down the corridor’:
On his arm leaned a slight, older man, dressed in a windjacket and old
army trousers. If it had not been
for his face, alight with intelligence, one might have taken him for some
vagabond Malcolm had found along the road and decided to bring out of the cold.
...I leaned over to [William] Gass and whispered, ‘That’s Wittgenstein.’
Gass thought I was making a joke and said something like, ‘Stop pulling
my leg.’ And then Malcolm and
Wittgenstein entered. [Gregory]
Vlastos was introduced and gave his paper and finished.
[Max] Black, who was conducting this particular meeting, stood up and
turned to his right and it became clear, to everyone’s surprise...that he was
about to address the shabby older man Malcolm had brought to the meeting.
Then came the startling words; said Black; ‘I wonder if you would be so
kind, Professor Wittgenstein...’
Well, when Black said ‘Wittgenstein’ a loud and instantaneous gasp went up from
the assembled students. You must
remember: ‘Wittgenstein’ was a mysterious and awesome name in the philosophical
world of 1949, at Cornell in particular.
The gasp that went up was just the gasp that would have gone up if Black
had said ‘I wonder if you would be so kind, Plato...’[24]
Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge.
In November of 1949 he learned he had cancer, and he died on April 28,
1951.
II. An Overview of
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy:
Many conceive of Wittgenstein as a
British philosopher, but this is a
serious mistake. As William Bartley
notes, such people need to attend to the fact that
...every decade in his
life was an Austrian one, save that period of some nine years immediately
before, during and after the Second World War when he was forced by
circumstances quite beyond his control to remain in Britain.
Any person who might be surprised by this statement would do well to
reflect that the three Cambridge academic full terms are after all only eight
weeks each in length, that Wittgenstein rarely arrived or lingered in Cambridge
more than a few days before and after term, and that it was his habit, even in
some of his most active Cambridge years, to spend twenty-five or twenty-six
weeks each year in Vienna or on one of the family estates....
If one accepts that the ways in which one styles oneself...say a lot
about who one is or would like to be, then how revealing it is to find out that
Ludwig Wittgenstein characterized himself in the...the Viennese City Directory,
in each edition from 1933 to 1938, as Dr. Ludwig Wittgenstein, occupation:
architect,” a resident of Vienna,
living, together with his sister Hermine and brother Paul, at Palais
Wittgenstein....[25]
Many accounts of Wittgenstein’s intellectual life have him not actively
doing philosophy during most of the 1920s while he was teaching school,
gardening, and acting as an architect.
But this is clearly wrong.
He was actively engaged during this period, but he began to move away from the
views he had developed in the Tractatus.
Wittgenstein’s philosophizing is generally divided into three periods:
the early period (e.g.,
his Tractatus),
the middle period (e.g.,
his Blue and Brown Books), and
the late period (e.g.,
his Investigations).
There are many other notebooks and collections of his
writings, and these show him continuously working and reworking his ideas.
In what follows I will briefly characterize his central concerns in each
of these periods, and we will then work through his works in more detail.
A characteristic of Twentieth-Century philosophy was its concern with
language. Richard Rorty
provides an excellent account of what is called the “linguistic turn” of
philosophy and characterizes linguistic philosophy as:
...the view that philosophical
problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming
language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use.[26]
Rorty’s essay is an excellent introduction to the
Twentieth-Century concern with language.
A.J. Ayer offers what may be considered the classic formulation of this
orientation when he says:
our charge against the
metaphysician is not that he attempts to employ the understanding in a field
where it cannot profitably venture, but that he produces sentences which fail to
conform to conditions under which alone a sentence can be literally significant.[27]
Like earlier “philosophical revolutions,” the linguistic
turn amounts to a methodological
recommendation (the recommendation that we adopt a new method of
philosophizing) which is designed to allow us to avoid fruitless controversies.
As the above citation makes clear, the linguistic philosophers believed
that these controversies are generally the result of a misuse of language.
In fact, they generally held that previous philosophers were often
uttering
meaningless statements.
A good example of this sort of claim is provided in Rudolf Carnap’s “The
Elimination of Metaphysics Through the Logical Analysis of Language:”
in saying that the so-called
statements of metaphysics are meaningless,
we intend this word in its strictest sense.[28]
Let us now look as some examples
of metaphysical pseudostatements of a kind where the violation of logical syntax
is especially obvious, though they accord with historical-grammatical syntax.
We select a few sentences from that metaphysical school which at present
exerts the strongest influence in Germany.
“What is to be investigated is being only and—nothing
else; being along and further—nothing;
solely being, and beyond being—nothing.
What about this nothing?...Does
the Nothing exist only because the Not, i.e. the Negation, exists?
Or is it the other way around?
Does Negation and the Not exist only because the Nothing exists?...We
assert: the Nothing is prior to the Not
and the Negation....Where do we seek the Nothing?
How do we find the Nothing....We know the Nothing....Anxiety
reveals the Nothing....That for which and because of which we are anxious,
was ‘really’—nothing. Indeed: the
Nothing itself—as such—was present....What about this Nothing?—The Nothing
itself nothings.[29]
The linguistic turn constitutes a rejection of such
“metaphysical philosophizing,” which many of the newer philosophers found to be
barren. Their view was that many of
the endless disagreements that arose in philosophy were the result of
linguistic confusion.
Rorty does an excellent job of introducing the
two “schools” of Twentieth-Century
linguistically inclined philosophizing (the
ideal language philosophers and the
ordinary language philosophers), and
he does an excellent job of showing that this linguistic turn is not without its
own [metaphysical] presuppositions.[30]
The former (the ideal language philosophers) endeavor to specify or
uncover an ideal language which will correctly portray the structure of the
world—they believe that much mistaken (and metaphysical) philosophy arises
because individuals are unclear in their use of language.
The ordinary language philosophers believe that there is no need to
construct (or seek) an ideal language—our ordinary language is fine as it is.
They contend that philosophical mistakes (and bad metaphysics) arise as
the result of our being misled by grammatical analogies, and they endeavor to
provide a corrective therapy to such misuse of language.
Wittgenstein’s philosophizing clearly displays the Twentieth-Century
concern with language. But he
occupies a unique position in Twentieth-Century philosophy—he is, in a sense
(and, of course, at different points in his life), the champion of
both the ideal and the
ordinary language orientations.
Throughout his life, Wittgenstein was concerned with
determining what language can and can
not do. As David Pears points
out,
this is a more radical enterprise
than fixing the scope and limits of human knowledge, because knowledge is
expressed in sentences, which have to achieve sense before they can achieve
truth. He develops his critique of
language in two quite different ways in the two periods of his philosophy.
In the Tractatus a general
theory of language is used to fix the bounds of sense, while in the
Philosophical Investigations no such
theory is offered, and the line between sense and senselessness is drawn not on
any general principle but with an eye on the special features of each case that
is reviewed. If his first book is
like a map with a superimposed grid, his second book is like the diary of a
journey recording all the deviations which looked so tempting but would have
ended in the morass of senselessness.[31]
In his The False
Prison: A Study of the Development of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy, Pears
contends that Wittgenstein’s philosophy is “critical”
(in the Kantian sense—though Pears contends that whereas Kant offered a critique
of thought in general, Wittgenstein “...offers a critique of the expression of
thought in language.”).[32]
In critical philosophy, the human intellect is “turned back upon itself”
in an effort to discover its limitations.
While I believe it is misleading, “critical philosophers” are often
contrasted with philosophers who concern themselves with the development of
speculative metaphysical systems.
This characterization would have the critical philosophers avoiding the
development of metaphysical systems, and this hardly seems to generate a true
picture of Kant (the paradigmatic “critical philosopher”).
Pears contends that the dichotomy between speculative metaphysics and
critical (and non-metaphysical) philosophy is too simplistic:
...there is an alternative to
dogmatic metaphysics. A
metaphysician does not have to be so overweening.
He does not have to extend our concepts beyond the limits of their
legitimate use, because he can avoid questions about the ultimate structure of
reality and confine himself to reality as it is apprehended by us, the so-called
‘phenomenal world’. For example,
instead of arguing that there must be a first cause of everything that exists,
he can argue that causality is a necessary ingredient in the mixture taken in by
our minds. To put the point in
Kant’s way, he may offer a metaphysic of experience instead of a dogmatic
metaphysic.[33]
It seems clear that Kant offers an extremely complex
metaphysical system, but the important thing to note is that it is supposed to
be based upon his critical reflection regarding the limits of thought.
In his “Preface” to the Tractatus,
Wittgenstein says that:
the book deals with the
problems of philosophy, and shows, I believe, that
the reason why these problems are posed
is that the logic of our language is misunderstood.
The whole sense of the book might be summed up in the following words:
what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we
must pass over in silence.
Thus the aim of the book is to set
a limit to thought, or rather—not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts;
for in order to be able to set a limit to thought, we should have to find both
sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what
cannot be thought).
It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be set, and what
lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense.
[34]
While the early Wittgenstein may not limit himself to the
critical enterprise (like Kant, he develops substantive [and speculative]
metaphysical theses), the later Wittgenstein may be more consistent—he may be
seen as more carefully limiting himself to the exploration of the limits of the
expression of thought.
III. A Very Brief
Overview of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus:
Wittgenstein’s
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (which he had wanted to call “The
Proposition”) develops a conception of propositions[35]
as pictures of the world.
In his Notebooks, 1914-1916
(which predate the Tractatus),
Wittgenstein contends that
my whole task consists in
explaining the nature of the proposition.
That is to say, in giving the nature of all facts, whose picture the
proposition is.[36]
Wittgenstein sees the world as composed of
objects that are
arranged together into
states-of-affairs.
Names are “signs” of
simple objects, and their meaning
just is the object. Wittgenstein
sees “elementary propositions” as
arrangements of names so that a possible
state-of-affairs in the world is pictured.
William Bartley characterizes this portion of the early Wittgenstein’s
theory as follows:
in his view, the world is
composed of objects arranged as facts.
A true elementary proposition pictures such a fact, called an
atomic fact, and such facts are, like
the elementary propositions which picture them, independent one from the other.
An elementary proposition may be meaningful without being true if it
pictures a possible combination of objects (a state of affairs) which does not
happen to obtain. Elementary
propositions and the states of affairs which they picture have a common form.[37]
Of course more complicated propositions would be composed
of elementary propositions which were joined together.
The connections which so “join” them were, for Wittgenstein,
logical connectives (‘and’, ‘or’,
‘if, then’, ‘not’, etc.). Their
truth or falsity is a “logical product” of the truth (or falsity) of the
elementary propositions.
While many thinkers conceived of the “objects” mentioned above as
sensory experiences, so that the
sort of atomism which Wittgenstein advanced would fit fully into the sort of
empiricistic picture advanced by the
logical positivists, it is important to note that
Wittgenstein never gives any examples of
such objects (or of names)—his
study is motivated by logical and grammatical considerations far more than by
epistemological ones. Passages like
the following helped encourage the view that the Wittgenstein of the
Tractatus is a logical positivist
primarily concerned with drawing a line of demarcation between meaningful
(scientific) and meaningless (metaphysical) discourse:
6.53 the correct method in
philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be
said, i.e. propositions of natural science—i.e. something that has noting to do
with philosophy—and when, whenever someone else wanted to say something
metaphysical to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to
certain signs in his propositions.
Although it would not be satisfying to the other person—he would not have the
feeling that we are teaching him philosophy—this
method would be the only strictly correct one.
These passages must be placed in context however.
In a letter to his friend Ludwig von Ficker characterizing the
Tractatus, Wittgenstein maintained
that:
the book’s point is an ethical
one. I once meant to include in the
preface a sentence which is not in fact there now but which I will write out for
you here, because it will perhaps be a key to the work for you.
What I meant to write, then, was this: My work consists of two parts: the
one presented here plus all that I have
not written. And it is
precisely this second part that is the important one.
My book draws limits to the sphere of the ethical from the inside, as it
were, and I am convinced that this is the ONLY
rigorous way of drawing those limits.
In short, I believe that where
many others today are just gassing,
I have managed in my book to put everything firmly into place by being silent
about it. And for that reason,
unless I am very much mistaken, the book will say a great deal that you yourself
want to say. Only perhaps you won’t
see that it is said in the book.
For now, I would recommend you read the
preface and the conclusion,
because they contain the most direct expression of the point of the book.[38]
It is clearly not the case that he is simply advancing the
positivistic (and Humean) program of distinguishing the empirical from the
nonempirical so that the latter can largely be “committed to the flames.”
The other main themes of the
Tractatus may be quickly indicated by citing the following from Ray Monk:
if Wittgenstein had followed
Russell’s suggestion, the work that would have been published in 1916 would have
been, in many ways, similar to the work we now know as the
Tractatus.
It would, that is, have contained
the picture theory of meaning,
the metaphysics of ‘logical atomism’,
the analysis of logic in terms of the
twin notions of tautology and contradiction, and
the distinction between saying and
showing (invoked to make the theory of types superfluous), and
the method of truth-tables (used to
show a logical proposition to be either a tautology or a contradiction).
In other words, it would have contained almost everything the
Tractatus now contains—except
the remarks at the end of the book on
ethics, aesthetics, the soul, and the meaning of life.
In a way, therefore, it would have been a completely different work.[39]
Wittgenstein did not hold on to all these doctrines throughout his life
however. William Bartley contends
that the interest which Wittgenstein developed in children’s psychology during
his period as a teacher, helped him move from his early doctrines to his later
ones:
Zettel,
The Blue and Brown Books, and
Philosophical Investigations must be
read in a number of different ways, but two necessary ways are as polemics
against the atomism represented by the
Tractatus or by Russell...and as attempts to develop the outlines of a child
psychology of language. How, after
all, does the Investigations open
except as a critique of Saint Augustine’s account of how a child learns a
language?”[40]
The later Wittgenstein rejected as simplistic the view of
language offered in the Tractatus.
It allowed only one function of
language—that of picturing the world.
The later Wittgenstein noted that first, there were many other functions.
Secondly, he noted, picturing is always for a purpose, and this means
that we must pay more attention to the fact that our linguistic behavior is
embedded in our lives. Thus a
significant difference emerges between the early and later Wittgenstein—the
former offers an essentialistic, detached, and “pure” conception of language,
while the latter offers a non-essentialistic, integrated, and impure theory of
human language use.
However, before we can talk about how his views change, we need to look
at his earliest views more carefully.
[1] Ray Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius
(N.Y.: Penguin, 1990).
[2] William
W. Bartley, III,
Wittgenstein (second edition) (LaSalle: Open
Court, 1985).
[3]
Cf.,
Bruce Duffy,
The World
As I Found It (N.Y.: Tichnor and Fields,
1988); Norman Malcolm,
Ludwig
Wittgenstein: A Memoir (second edition)
(Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1984); and Steven Toulmin
and Alan Janik,
Wittgenstein’s Vienna (N.Y.: Simon and
Schuster, 1973).
[4] A
sentence like this should not just be read, it
requires, indeed demands, critical thought!
Russell was one of the colossal figures
in logic at the time in the world (perhaps he
will be judged one of the colossal figures of
the history of the subject), and the comment I
make comes almost directly from his own words.
While the accomplishments of students
clearly can surpass those of their professors,
rarely does it happen so quickly.
Wittgenstein was full of self-doubt, and
in this case, he seems to have caused Russell,
who was rarely subject to this malaise to become
deeply moved by it.
See the text to note 8 below!
[5] Norman
Malcolm, "Wittgenstein," in
The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy v. 8, ed. Paul
Edwards (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1967), pp. 327-340, p.
327.
[6] Bertrand
Russell,
The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1914-1944
(N.Y.: Bantam, 1969), p. 132.
[7]
Ibid.,
pp. 132-133.
[8]
Ibid.,
p. 64.
[9] Ray Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein,
op. cit.,
p. 88.
[10] Both
sets of notes are reproduced in
Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Notebooks 1914-1916, eds. G.H.
von Wright and G.E.M. Anscombe, trans. G.E.M.
Anscombe (N.Y.: Harper, 1961), the former in
Appendix I and the latter in Appendix II.
[11] G.H. von
Wright, “A Biographical Sketch,” in
Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir,
op. cit., p. 9.
[12] Ray
Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 137.
[13]Ibid.,
pp. 170-180.
[14] Of
course, such punishment was the norm in Austria
before and after the war.
It is important to note that in defending
himself against the charges, Wittgenstein had to
lie (saying that this instance of punishment was
no worse than what he often administered), and
this is just the sort of compromise which made
him feel “impure.”
Throughout his life such instances caused
him great distress.
[15] William
Bartley, III,
Wittgenstein, op. cit., pp. 76-77.
[16] The most
important assistance which Russell offered was
an “Introduction” which more or less guaranteed
that a publisher would publish the work—anything
by Russell was almost guaranteed to sell well!
Since Russell did not understand the very
core of the work, however, Wittgenstein felt
that including his “introduction” was a
compromise that was far too great to allow the
work to go forward.
Nonetheless, it did go forward, and
Wittgenstein again made just the sort of
“compromise” which, he felt, left him impure and
violated his “duty to himself.”
[17] The
logical positivists maintained that too much
philosophical thought was
meaningless discourse.
They held that all statements were either
empirically verifiable (subject to
experiential check) or
meaningless, and they recommended that we
limit our attention to the meaningful
statements.
This school of philosophy (which arose at
the end of the 19th Century) suffered
a rather quick demise when it became clear that
the core statement of the positivists (the
second sentence of this note) was not
empirically verifiable!
[18] Ray
Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 249.
[19] G.H. von
Wright, “A Biographical Sketch,”
op. cit.,
p. 12.
[20] Ray
Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 271.
[21] G.H. von
Wright, “A Biographical Sketch,”
op. cit.,
pp. 15-16.
Emphasis added to passage.
[22] Norman
Malcolm,
Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, op. cit., p.
40.
[23] Ray
Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 415.
[24] Ray
Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 558.
In his “A Memory of a Master,” the
American writer and philosopher William Gass
masterfully recounts this meeting (cf.,
William Gass, “A Memory of A Master,” in his
Fiction
and the Figures of Life [N.Y.: Vintage,
1958], pp. 247-252).
[25] William
W. Bartley, III,
Wittgenstein, op. cit., pp. 20-21.
I believe Bartley overstates this,
however.
It is clear that after the Second World
War Wittgenstein spends far less time in Austria
than before (his time away from Cambridge is
more likely spent in Ireland than in Vienna, for
example).
Still, Bartley’s corrective to a tendency
to treat him as if he were British is clearly on
target.
[26] Richard
Rorty, “Introduction: Metaphilosophical
Difficulties of Linguistic Philosophy,” in
The Linguistic Turn, ed. Richard Rorty,
(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1967), pp.
1-39, p. 3.
[27] A.J.
Ayer,
Language, Truth and Logic (London: Gollancz,
1936), p. 35.
[28] Rudolf
Carnap, “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through
Logical Analysis of Language,” in
Logical
Positivism, ed. A.J. Ayer (N.Y.: Free Press,
1959), pp. 60-81, p. 61.
The essay was originally published in
German in
Erkenntnis v. 2 (1932).
[29]
Ibid.,
p. 69.
Carnap is citing from Martin Heidegger’s
What is
Metaphysics? [1929].
In a footnote to this passage, Carnap
says that “we could just as well have selected
passages from any other of the numerous
metaphysicians of the present or past; yet the
selected passages seem to us to illustrate our
thesis especially well.
[30] Indeed,
Rorty’s essay is an excellent discussion of the
topic of “philosophical revolutions,” and I
recommend it as a worthwhile discussion of what
is often called “metaphilosophy” as well as an
excellent introduction to the period of
philosophizing we are concerned with.
[31] David
Pears, “Wittgenstein,” in
Companion
to Epistemology, eds. Jonathan Dancy and
Ernest Sosa (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), pp.
523-527, p. 524.
[32] David
Pears,
The False Prison: A Study of the Development of
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy v. 1 (Oxford:
Oxford U.P., 1987), p. 3.
[33]
Ibid.,
p. 4.
Emphasis added to passage.
[34] Ludwig
Wittgenstein,
Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus [1921], trans. D.F.
Pears and B.F. McGuinness (London: Routledge,
1961), p. 3.
Emphasis is added to the passage.
Further citations to this work will be
noted with the appropriate paragraph number.
[35] A
proposition is a sentence which can be either
true or false.
Not all sentences are propositions
(questions and commands, for example, don’t make
assertions, and can’t be considered “true or
false”).
[36] Ludwig
Wittgenstein,
Notebooks, 1914-1916, eds. G.H. von Wright
and G.E.M. Anscome, trans. G.E.M. Anscome (N.Y.:
Harper, 1961), p. 39.
[37] William
W. Bartley, III,
Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 62.
[38] The
letter is quoted by W.W. Bartley in his
Wittgenstein, op. cit., pp. 48-49; and in
Monk’s
Ludwig Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 178.
[39] Ray
Monk,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, ibid., p. 134.
[40] William
W. Bartley,
Wittgenstein, op. cit., p. 130.
Cf.,
also pp. 128-129.
Go to Lecture Supplement Introducing the Tractatus
File revised on 01/06/2014.