Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 02:40:14 -0800
Subject: Re: wittgenstein


jon roffe wrote:

Hi, Jon - Ive inserted some REPLY items below. - Hugh
 -AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-
> Eric,
> 
> I just wanted to respond briefly to reading of Wittgenstein, which I
> disagree with in places.  I do think that Lyotard's 'sublime' has the
> flavour of early Wittgenstein. I must say, though, that it strikes me as
> very strange that you characterise him as the positivist of semantics .
> . . in what way do you mean positivist?
> 
> >Wittgenstein, influenced by
> >Schopenhauer, tended towards a subjective, psychoanalytical view of
> these
> >things.  (The solution to the problems of existence are seen in the
> vanishing
> >of the problem)  This certainly remains in the late Wittgenstein as
> well.
> > There is an overriding sense in which language only needs to be
> analyzed and
> >the problems will vanish through a kind of consensus.  The problems
> posed by
> >Wittgenstein regarding language games is a philosohical one; never a
> >political one. There is no real sense of how language games legitimize
> power
> >in unequal relatationships. There is no real awareness of how power
> >unconsciously structures the very scope of the game itself; what is and > isn't > >permitted for discussion.  Everything in Wittgenstein becomes the > positivism > >of semantics.
> 
> First of all, I'd be interested as to why you think that Wittgenstein
> was influenced by Schopenhauer? Secondly, I don't know about
> 'subjective, psychological' - in fact, as I read it W.'s later work, in
> particular the _Philosophical Investigations_ are aimed directly at
> individualist, psychological presumptions inherent in philosophy. I
> would find it very hard to believe that he himself is operating within
> that paradigm, as you describe it.
> 
> The issues you raise re Wittgenstein and power are interesting. I've
> been working on an imaginary relationship between the work of
> Wittgenstein and Foucault, so I'd be interested in any elaboration you
> had to offer.  However, I think your recourse to Marx is problemmatic,
> in terms of the analysis of power that he offers - here's where I see
> Foucault coming in - and that a Marxist orthodox understanding of power
> helps even less than your assessment of Wittgenstein's silence of the
> issue of power - a silence that I too find puzzling.
-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-
REPLY:  The logical positivists (Vienna) and the English philosophers,
of Wittgensteins era and later, dealt with logic and language and
although Russell was a famous and admired activist, the philosophical
works of that era have little to do with politics.
-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-

> >The virtue of Lyotard is that he reads Wittgenstein in the light of
> Marx.  I
> >don't think he believes in the politics of consensus. He believes
> instead in
> >conflict and not in better communication.
> >
> 
> Looking forward to any replies,
> 
> Jon (the other one)
-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-

REPLY: There is the world of logic and meaning which seems to 
characterize English philosophy at the time Wittengestein was in England
and worked with Russell and others.

There is the world of linguistics which studies language in a different
way.  

There is the world of language see through the lens of Lyotard, which
is unlike the world of any other philosopher I've read. 

Foucault say power through a lens of institutions.

The importance of language to Lyotard is of a different order than
it was to his predecessors.

Hugh