THE WITTGENSTEIN PROJECT

My project is simple but demanding. I am trying to reread Wittgenstein from the beginning without, however, relying on any established interpretations. My question is whether we can look at his work with fresh eyes. Ignoring the halo of secondary writing that now surrounds that work. This does not mean that we will always end up disagreeing with previous interpreters. My plan is to re-discover their insights where they prove to be such and otherwise go my own way.

“A philosophical problem has the form: I don’t know my way about.” Wittgenstein on the Road

How to read Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus remains a contested question. Is the
book intended to advance a theory? Is it meant to lay out an atomistic metaphysics? A theory of
truth and meaning? A logical theory? Or does it aim at showing that such theories are impossible?
How does one get from its initial assertion that the world is everything that is the case to the conclusion that one must overcome its propositions to see the world in the right way? The Tractatus
maps, in fact, Wittgenstein’s trajectory of thought through the course of the First World War.
It follows the transformations of his thinking from his initial commitment to Russell’s logical
atomism to his subsequent struggle with the question of the meaning of life. Far from advancing
a philosophical proposition or a set of such propositions the work is meant to delineate, instead,
a new kind of philosophical practice in which the constant transformation of thought, the readiness to always see things in new ways is essential.

Facts, possibilities, and the world. Three Lessons from Wittgenstein’s Tractatus

Abstract: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus has always been and remains a puzzle and that from its first page onwards. According to its initial assertions, the totality of facts constitutes the world and the totality of states of affairs defines the space of logical possibilities. But what are facts? What are possible states of affairs? And why do we need to consider their totality? Frege and Russell were the first to grapple with these interpretational questions. The ever-growing secondary literature on the Tractatus shows how easy it is to become absorbed in its hermeneutics. More important, however, is the question what substantively philosophical lessons we can extract from Wittgenstein’s words. There are, it turns out, at least, three of them. The first is, that the concept of fact, on which Russell and the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus relied so much, is philosophically brittle and that we must turn our attention, instead, to the broader notion of the factuality of the world. The second lesson is that we can and must think about the world in both factual and modal terms but that in doing so we must treat the idea of possibility, not that of necessity, as primary and we must conceive of possibilities as merely virtual, not as factual. The third is that we must consider the world as a whole, if we are to make sense of logic, science, and ethics.

Wittgenstein on the limits of language

Our attempts to deal with “the problems of philosophy” go characteristically wrong because we don’t understand “the logic of our language.” There are limits to language and these delegitimize the endeavor to advance philosophical theories. If we are to resolve our philosophical problems, we must go about it in some…

Wittgenstein’s World

Here is the power point file of the lecture I just gave at the World Congress of Philosophy in Beijing. Wittgenstein’s World Beijing 2

Wittgensteins Welt

Here is the text of a lecture (in German) on Wittgenstein’s conception of world delivered at the International Wittgenstein Symposium in Kirchberg/Austria in August 2017

Who am I?

On the gravestone of the poet Rainer Maria Rilke we can read one of his last poems which says: Oh rose, you pure contradiction. To be nobody’s sleep under so many eyelids.” Is there a self and if not, who am I?

Wittgenstein on the Puzzle of Privacy

“In what sense are my sensations private? – Well, only I know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it. – In one way this is wrong, and in another nonsense. If we are using the word ‘to know’ as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people often know when I am in pain. – Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself! – It can’t be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean – except perhaps that I am in pain.”

Wittgenstein on the Self

“Think of a picture of a landscape, an imaginary landscape with a house in it. – Someone asks ‘whose house is that?’ – The answer, by the way, might be ‘It belongs to the farmer who is sitting on the bench in front of it.’” (PI, 398) Wittgenstein tells this story in the midst of a discussion on the self, the I, or better: on the ways we use the word “I”.

Simple Objects, Complex Questions

Summary: The essay examines Wittgenstein’s doctrine that there must be simple objects that form the substance of the world. Focusing on the 1914-1916 notebooks it seeks to determine the emergence of this doctrine and the reasons for its ultimate destruction.

From Moore’s Lecture Notes to Wittgenstein’s Blue Book

How many Wittgensteins are there? One, two, three, or even more? The question has no definite answer. There is surely more than one way to look at Wittgenstein’s work and to divide it up in this or that way – for instance, by distinguishing different themes and preoccupations, or different styles of writing, or different phases of thinking according to this or that time-line.

Beyond “the new” Wittgenstein

Where do we stand today vis-à-vis Wittgenstein’s work? The short answer is that we are caught in a spiral of ever more detailed, ever more exacting, ever deeper digging, ever more sophisticated, ever more scholarly exegeses of his writings: a self-sustaining process in which, so it seems, we are increasingly in danger of losing sight of the world — which, as we should know from the very first sentence of Wittgenstein’s first publication, was what engaged him first and foremost.

Familienähnlichkeit

“Hier stossen wir auf die grosse Frage, die hinter allen diesen Betrachtungen steht. – Denn man könnte mir einwenden: ‘Du machst dir’s leicht! Du redest von allen möglichen Sprachspielen, hast aber nirgends gesagt, was denn das Wesentliche des Sprachspiels, und also der Sprache ist. Was allen diesen Vorgängen gemeinsam ist und sie zur Sprache, oder zu Teilen der Sprache macht.’ …. Und das ist wahr. – Statt etwas anzugeben, was allem, was wir Sprache nennen, gemeinsam ist, sage ich, es ist diesen Erscheinungen garnicht Eines gemeinsam, weswegen wir für alle das gleiche Wort verwenden, sondern sie sind miteinander in vielen verschiedenen Weisen, verwandt. Und dieser Verwandtschaft, oder dieser Verwandtschaften wegen nennen wir sie alle ‘Sprachen.’