Later Wittgenstein's Correct Method of Philosophy
Later Wittgenstein's Correct Method of Philosophy
In his Philosophical Investigations, what is later Wittgenstein's "Correct Method" of philosophy?
-
mickthinks
- Posts: 1531
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: Later Wittgenstein's Correct Method of Philosophy
Though the earlier Wittgenstein did outline something like that in the Tractatus, I don't believe the later Wittgenstein proposed anything in Investigations that might be claimed as the correct method of philosophy.
-
The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Later Wittgenstein's Correct Method of Philosophy
The work was not a totally coherent work, it was published posthumously after all. I've read a few sections in it and nothing in it indicates he was attempting at laying out any method.
Re: Later Wittgenstein's Correct Method of Philosophy
"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 nothing to do with philosophy -- and then, 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 were teaching him philosophy -- this method would be the only strictly correct one."
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 6.53
By the time he was putting together what became the Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein had completely changed his view of the way that language operates, and therefore of the goals of philosophy:
125. It is the business of philosophy, not to resolve a contradiction by means of a mathematical or logico-mathematical discovery, but to make it possible for us to get a clear view of the state of mathematics that troubles us: the state of affairs before the contradiction is resolved. (And this does not mean that one is sidestepping a difficulty.)
The fundamental fact here is that we lay down rules, a technique, for a game, and that then when we follow the rules, things do not turn out as we had assumed. That we are therefore as it were entangled in our own rules.
This entanglement in our rules is what we want to understand (i.e. get a clear view of).
It throws light on our concept of meaning something. For in those cases things turn out otherwise than we had meant, foreseen. That is just what we say when, for example, a contradiction appears: "I didn't mean it like that."
The civil status of a contradiction, or its status in civil life: there is the philosophical problem.
126. Philosophy simply puts everything before us, and neither explains nor deduces anything. -- Since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain. For what is hidden, for example, is of no interest to us.
One might also give the name "philosophy" to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions.
127. The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose.
128. If one tried to advance theses in philosophy, it would never be possible to debate them, because everyone would agree to them.
309. What is your aim in philosophy? -- To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.
599. In philosophy we do not draw conclusions. "But it must be like this!" is not a philosophical proposition. Philosophy only states what everyone admits.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 6.53
By the time he was putting together what became the Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein had completely changed his view of the way that language operates, and therefore of the goals of philosophy:
125. It is the business of philosophy, not to resolve a contradiction by means of a mathematical or logico-mathematical discovery, but to make it possible for us to get a clear view of the state of mathematics that troubles us: the state of affairs before the contradiction is resolved. (And this does not mean that one is sidestepping a difficulty.)
The fundamental fact here is that we lay down rules, a technique, for a game, and that then when we follow the rules, things do not turn out as we had assumed. That we are therefore as it were entangled in our own rules.
This entanglement in our rules is what we want to understand (i.e. get a clear view of).
It throws light on our concept of meaning something. For in those cases things turn out otherwise than we had meant, foreseen. That is just what we say when, for example, a contradiction appears: "I didn't mean it like that."
The civil status of a contradiction, or its status in civil life: there is the philosophical problem.
126. Philosophy simply puts everything before us, and neither explains nor deduces anything. -- Since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain. For what is hidden, for example, is of no interest to us.
One might also give the name "philosophy" to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions.
127. The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose.
128. If one tried to advance theses in philosophy, it would never be possible to debate them, because everyone would agree to them.
309. What is your aim in philosophy? -- To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.
599. In philosophy we do not draw conclusions. "But it must be like this!" is not a philosophical proposition. Philosophy only states what everyone admits.
Re: Later Wittgenstein's Correct Method of Philosophy
Is there anything that everyone admits ?
Apart from things like two plus two makes four ?
Apart from things like two plus two makes four ?