Subject: re: wittgenstein
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 23:10:44 PST


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.
>
>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)

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com