David G. Stern

The "standard account" of Wittgenstein’s relations with the Vienna Circle is that the early Wittgenstein was a principal source and inspiration for the Circle’s positivistic and scientific philosophy, while the later Wittgenstein was deeply opposed to the logical empiricist project of articulating a "scientific conception of the world." However, this telegraphic summary is at best only half-true and at worst deeply misleading. For it prevents us appreciating the fluidity and protean character of their philosophical dialogue. In retrospectively attributing clear-cut positions to Wittgenstein and his interlocutors, it is very easy to read back our current understanding of familiar distinctions into a time when those terms were used in a much more open-ended way. The paper aims to to provide a broader perspective on this debate, starting from the protagonists’ understanding of their respective positions. Too often, the programmatic statements about the nature of their work that are repeated in manifestoes, introductions, and elementary textbooks have occupied center stage in the subsequent secondary literature. Consequently, I focus on a detailed examination of a turning point in their relationship. That turning point is Wittgenstein's charge, in the summer of 1932, that a recently published paper of Carnap's, "Physicalistic Language as the Universal Language of Science", made such extensive and unacknowledged use of Wittgenstein's own ideas that Wittgenstein would, as he put it in a letter to Schlick, "soon be in a situation where my own work shall be considered merely as a reheated version or plagiarism of Carnap’s." While the leading parties in this dispute shared a basic commitment to the primacy of physicalistic language, and the view that all significant languages are translatable, there was a remarkable lack of mutual understanding between them, and deep disagreement about the nature of the doctrines they disputed. Three quarters of a century later, we are so much more conscious of the differences that separated them than the points on which they agreed that it takes an effort of historical reconstruction to appreciate why Wittgenstein once feared that his own work would be regarded as a pale shadow of Carnap’s.

Wittgenstein's middle period work has been brought into the current debate on rule following and representation by Kripke and the Hintikkas. In my dissertation, I argue that approaches which aim at a consistent reconstruction of Wittgenstein's argument, while valuable in their own right, fail to do justice to his focus on the conflicting intuitions that lie behind philosophical theory building. For this hidden and ambiguous side to his thought is the turning point in his philosophical development. ;One can summarise my findings as follows: In 1929, Wittgenstein recognised that the analysis of colour propositions forced him to give up the Tractarian doctrine that analysis must end in logically independent elementary propositions. From this point, his work branched out in two main directions. On the one hand, he worked on 'philosophical grammar': analyses of the rules we follow in talking about such matters as colour, visual experience, intention, time, memory and the philosophical subject. Here, the picture theory provided the basis for an account of how the mind represents the world. On the other hand, he also thought of language as a 'secondary' system, to be contrasted with direct apprehension of the 'primary' phenomena. This view, which is set out most fully in several chapters of an unpublished typescript , led to a seemingly inexpressible solipsism on which 'all is in flux.' The attempt to reconcile the two conceptions of the pictorial analogy--language as a system of representational conventions and experience as a direct presentation of the phenomena--ultimately led him to see the dangers in that analogy and thus to his later notion of a 'philosophical picture.'.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Taking Wittgenstein at his Word: A Textual StudyDavid SternRobert J. Fogelin. Taking Wittgenstein at his Word: A Textual Study. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2009. Pp. xviii + 181. Cloth, $35.00.This is an excellent book, which should be read widely. It is a short, lucid, and accessible introduction to Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, written by a leading expert. It is the ideal sequel to Saul Kripke’s Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language on a short list of required readings for a course on Wittgenstein. Part 1 concerns rule following and the conceivability of a private language, while part 2 discusses three topics in his philosophy of mathematics: the status of mathematical expressions, Wittgenstein’s treatment of Cantor on transfinite cardinals, and his approach to logical consistency. There is very little discussion of the secondary literature on any of these topics. Instead, apart from a few prefatory methodological [End Page 147] passages, almost all of the book is devoted to extensive quotations from Wittgenstein’s writing and to close reading of what he says there.Fogelin’s chief aim, to take Wittgenstein at his word, is in a sense a very modest one. Wittgenstein insisted throughout his career that he was not presenting philosophical theses, and that philosophy should not be a matter of defending theses. Indeed, Fogelin explicitly acknowledges that in taking Wittgenstein at his word, he is not presenting “a novel—hitherto unrecognized—way of understanding Wittgenstein’s later philosophy” (xii–xiii). Nevertheless, most interpreters have read Wittgenstein as failing to follow his own methodological precepts, and their interpretations have focused on the theses that they attribute to him. Instead, Fogelin lets “Wittgenstein speak for himself” (xi), not only quoting at length from his writings, but also from Wittgenstein’s “self-commentaries” (xi), passages where Wittgenstein helps us appreciate the philosophical significance he assigns to his words. Crucially, these quotations are held together by a close reading that provides a lucid and perceptive statement of what Wittgenstein is saying there and why, highlighting the intimate connection between Wittgenstein’s philosophical methods and his treatment of key topics in the philosophy of language and mathematics.A leading theme in Fogelin’s book is what he calls Wittgenstein’s “defactoist” approach to rule following. While he does not define this neologism, he does say that it involves “the rejection of appeals to rational processes where philosophers typically have attempted to find or supply them” (41). Furthermore, Fogelin connects it with the central role Wittgenstein gives to natural responses and training, the fact that the kind of training a creature can undergo depends on its natural or instinctive responses and Wittgenstein’s “rejection of the idea that training is merely an external device intended to induce in the trainee a grasp of the correctness, the legitimacy, of what he has been trained to do” (35–36).Although Fogelin never explicitly addresses the crucial question of which texts to draw on in taking Wittgenstein “at his word,” in practice he makes use of a wide range of publications from every stage of Wittgenstein’s career. The Tractatus, written during the First World War, is treated as belonging to an earlier stage of his thought, and some similarities to and differences from his later work are discussed. No such distinctions are drawn between material written in the early 1930s, editors’ reconstruction of lecture notes from the early 1930s and late 1930s, passages from the Philosophical Investigations, assembled in the mid-1940s, the different parts of the Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, from the mid-1930s to early 1940s, and selections from On Certainty, dating from the late 1940s and early 1950s. While Fogelin acknowledges that there was some development in Wittgenstein’s views during these years, he puts great weight on passages taken from manuscripts and student lecture notes from the 1930s. For instance, in his crucial opening chapter on rule following, he relies heavily on the words with which Wittgenstein first formulated his paradox of interpretation in the early 1930s (20–21) and on his statement of the connection between meaning and rules in his 1932 lectures (17). While these passages are attractive precisely because they...

La discussion sur le langage privé que l’on trouve dans les Recherchesphilosophiques a été écrite entre 1937 et 1945, après que les 190 premières remarques de la partie I du livre eurent presque atteint leur forme finale. Les textes post-1936 sur le langage privé constituent un nouveau départ, dans sa lettre et son esprit, par rapport au matériau d’avant 1936.Néanmoins, entre 1929 et 1936, Wittgenstein s’est penché à plusieurs reprises sur l’idée d’un langage « que moi seul peux comprendre ». Un volet de cette question qui, lui, est abordé directement dans les Recherches, c’est l’idée que « si j’appliquais le mot “douleur” uniquement à ce que j’ai nommé jusqu’ici “ma douleur”, et les autres “la douleur de L.W.”, je ne ferais ainsi aucun tort aux autres, si toutefois l’on avait prévu une notation qui d’une façon ou d’une autre, permettrait de pallier l’absence du mot “douleur” dans d’autres combinaisons ». Cependant, la discussion de cette question dans les Recherches est beaucoup plus brève que dans les textes d’avant 1936. J’examine le rapport entre ce § 403 des Recherches d’un côté, et de l’autre côté les textes des cahiers de 1929 et les Remarques philosophiques , en retraçant le développement initial de cette argumentation et en explorant les principales lignes de continuité et de discontinuité dans le traitement que Wittgenstein réserve à la question du langage privé.The discussion of private language in the Investigations was written between 1937 and 1945, after the first 190 remarks of Part I of the book had almost reached their final form. The post-1936 writing on private language represents a fresh start, both in wording and in conception, on the pre-1936 material.Nevertheless, Wittgenstein did repeatedly discuss the idea of a language which “only I myself can understand” during 1929-36. One strand in this discussion that is directly taken up in the Investigations is the idea that “If I were to reserve the word ‘pain’ solely for what I had hitherto called ‘my pain”, and others “L.W.’s pain,” I should do other people no injustice, so long as a notation were provided in which the loss of the word ‘pain’ in other connexions were somehow supplied.” However, the discussion of this topic in the Investigations is much briefer than in the pre-1936 writing. I look at the relationship between §403 and texts from the 1929 notebooks and the Philosophical Remarks, assembled in the spring of 1930, mapping out the earlier development of this line of argument and exploring the principal continuities and discontinuities in Wittgenstein’s treatment of private language

The paper maps out and responds to some of the main areas of disagreement over the nature of Wittgenstein’s philosophy: (1) Between defenders of a “two Wittgensteins” reading (which draws a sharp distinction between early and late Wittgenstein) and the opposing “one Wittgenstein” interpretation. (2) Among “two-Wittgensteins” interpreters as to when the later philosophy emerged, and over the central difference between early and late Wittgenstein. (3) Between those who hold that Wittgenstein opposes only past philosophy in order to do philosophy better and those who hold that Wittgenstein aimed to bring an end to philosophy and teach us to get by without a replacement. It is shown that each of these debates depends on some deeply un-Wittgensteinian, and quite mistaken, assumptions. It is concluded that Wittgenstein’s most polished writing, most notably in Philosophical Investigations I §§ 1–425, is best understood as a kind of Pyrrhonism which aims to subvert philosophical theorizing, by means of a polyphonic dialogue. Because this delicate balance between philosophical questions and their dissolution is not achieved in most of his other published and unpublished writings, we should be very cautious when using the theories and methods we find in those other writings as a guide to reading the Philosophical Investigations.

Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most important, influential, and often-cited philosophers of the twentieth century, yet he remains one of its most elusive and least accessible. The essays in this volume address central themes in Wittgenstein's writings on the philosophy of mind, language, logic, and mathematics. They chart the development of his work and clarify the connections between its different stages. The contributors illuminate the character of the whole body of work by keeping a tight focus on some key topics: the style of the philosophy, the conception of grammar contained in it, rule-following, convention, logical necessity, the self, and what Wittgenstein called, in a famous phrase, 'forms of life'.

The "standard account" of Wittgenstein’s relations with the Vienna Circle is that the early Wittgenstein was a principal source and inspiration for the Circle’s positivistic and scientific philosophy, while the later Wittgenstein was deeply opposed to the logical empiricist project of articulating a "scientific conception of the world." However, this telegraphic summary is at best only half-true and at worst deeply misleading. For it prevents us appreciating the fluidity and protean character of their philosophical dialogue. In retrospectively attributing clear-cut positions to Wittgenstein and his interlocutors, it is very easy to read back our current understanding of familiar distinctions into a time when those terms were used in a much more open-ended way. The paper aims to to provide a broader perspective on this debate, starting from the protagonists’ understanding of their respective positions. Too often, the programmatic statements about the nature of their work that are repeated in manifestoes, introductions, and elementary textbooks have occupied center stage in the subsequent secondary literature. Consequently, I focus on a detailed examination of a turning point in their relationship. That turning point is Wittgenstein's charge, in the summer of 1932, that a recently published paper of Carnap's, "Physicalistic Language as the Universal Language of Science", made such extensive and unacknowledged use of Wittgenstein's own ideas that Wittgenstein would, as he put it in a letter to Schlick, "soon be in a situation where my own work shall be considered merely as a reheated version or plagiarism of Carnap’s." While the leading parties in this dispute shared a basic commitment to the primacy of physicalistic language, and the view that all significant languages are translatable, there was a remarkable lack of mutual understanding between them, and deep disagreement about the nature of the doctrines they disputed. Three quarters of a century later, we are so much more conscious of the differences that separated them than the points on which they agreed that it takes an effort of historical reconstruction to appreciate why Wittgenstein once feared that his own work would be regarded as a pale shadow of Carnap’s.

Did Wittgenstein consider himself a Jew? Should we? Wittgenstein repeatedly wrote about Jews and Judaism in the 1930s, and biographical studies make it clear that this writing about Jewishness was a way in which he thought about the kind of person he was and the nature of his philosophical work. Those who have written about Wittgenstein on the Jews have drawn very different conclusions. But much of this debate is confused, because the notion of being a Jew, of Jewishness, is itself ambiguous and problematic. The paper provides a close reading of leading passages in which Wittgenstein discusses Jews and Jewishness, and argues that previous interpreters have been too quick to condemn or defend him. If we consider what it could mean to say that Wittgenstein was, or was not, a Jew, we will see that Wittgenstein's problems with 'Jewishness' arise out of the philosophically problematic nature of the concept, a philosophical problem he was unable to resolve.

While Wittgenstein wrote unconventionally and denied that he was advancing philosophical theses, most of his interpreters have attributed conventional philosophical theses to him. But the best recent interpretations have taken the form of his writing and his distinctive way of doing philosophy seriously. The 1980s have also seen the emergence of a body of work on Wittgenstein that makes extensive use of the unpublished Wittgenstein papers. This work on Wittgenstein's method and his way of writing are the main themes of this literature review.Section 1 surveys Wittgenstein's conception of philosophical method and its reception. Section 2 is a review of recent work on rule-following and the methodological issues it raises. Section 3 concerns research on the WittgensteinNachlass and its implications for the interpretation of his philosophy.

This is an original, ambitious, and provocative book. It argues that Wittgenstein’s later philosophy can best be understood as a response to two problems that animate post-Kantian idealism and romanticism, drawing primarily on the work of Fichte, Schiller, Schlegel, Hegel, Wordsworth, and Goethe. The first is the metaphilosophical problem of the “critique of critique,” the question of what basis can there possibly be for critical philosophy if Kant’s own appeal to the categories proves unacceptable. The second is the ethical problem of expressive freedom, the question of the relationship between Willkür, volitional freedom, or the power to choose between alternatives, and Wille, rational freedom, that is, free choice informed by rational norms or laws. Eldridge argues that the romantic response to these problems is simultaneously philosophical and literary: to argue that the desperately needed solution must remain beyond our grasp, and to enact this tragic drama of aspiration and its disappointment in writing that continually aspires to yet fails to reach its goal.