Changing the Subject: The Auto/biographical as the Philosophical in Wittgenstein

Epoch Pub Date : 2007-04-01 DOI:10.5840/EPOCHE200712110
David LaRocca
{"title":"Changing the Subject: The Auto/biographical as the Philosophical in Wittgenstein","authors":"David LaRocca","doi":"10.5840/EPOCHE200712110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, I investigate our understanding of what counts as philosophical. Using the life and work ofWittgenstein as a test case, I take a close look at how various Wittgenstein scholars relate to work other than the principal and accepted philosophical texts (such as the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations), and suggest that there is an inconsistency in the criteria of what we can and should be taking seriously for philosophical purposes; sometimes there is inconsistency of use (one thing is said, another is done), and sometimes there is inconsistency in the form of occlusion (the scholar simply avoids the chance (or responsibility) to define terms). Guarding against advocacy for essentialism, I argue that philosophers might benefit from a more direct and explicit engagement with the criteria they use when writing about the philosophical significance of material other than dominant texts.That engagement, however, reveals that the pursuit of criteria is at odds with the spirit of Wittgenstein's philosophy. As a result, we stand in need of an alternative method of discerning what counts. I suggest that, in the context of Wittgenstein's work, such a method is a matter of approach, not criteria. Perhaps this method can extend beyond Wittgenstein's work to a general view of what counts as philosophical.","PeriodicalId":202733,"journal":{"name":"Epoch","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epoch","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/EPOCHE200712110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this essay, I investigate our understanding of what counts as philosophical. Using the life and work ofWittgenstein as a test case, I take a close look at how various Wittgenstein scholars relate to work other than the principal and accepted philosophical texts (such as the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations), and suggest that there is an inconsistency in the criteria of what we can and should be taking seriously for philosophical purposes; sometimes there is inconsistency of use (one thing is said, another is done), and sometimes there is inconsistency in the form of occlusion (the scholar simply avoids the chance (or responsibility) to define terms). Guarding against advocacy for essentialism, I argue that philosophers might benefit from a more direct and explicit engagement with the criteria they use when writing about the philosophical significance of material other than dominant texts.That engagement, however, reveals that the pursuit of criteria is at odds with the spirit of Wittgenstein's philosophy. As a result, we stand in need of an alternative method of discerning what counts. I suggest that, in the context of Wittgenstein's work, such a method is a matter of approach, not criteria. Perhaps this method can extend beyond Wittgenstein's work to a general view of what counts as philosophical.
转换主题:维特根斯坦的自我/传记哲学
在这篇文章中,我调查了我们对什么是哲学的理解。以维特根斯坦的生活和工作为例,我仔细研究了维特根斯坦学者是如何与主要的和公认的哲学文本(如《哲学论文集》和《哲学研究》)以外的作品联系起来的,并建议在我们能够和应该为哲学目的认真对待的标准中存在不一致;有时会出现用法上的不一致(说一件事,做另一件事),有时会出现混淆的不一致(学者只是避免了定义术语的机会(或责任))。为了防止对本质主义的拥护,我认为哲学家们可能会受益于更直接和明确地参与他们在写作材料的哲学意义时所使用的标准,而不是主导文本。然而,这种参与表明,对标准的追求与维特根斯坦哲学的精神是不一致的。因此,我们需要另一种方法来辨别什么是重要的。我认为,在维特根斯坦的工作背景下,这种方法是一种方法,而不是标准。也许这种方法可以超越维特根斯坦的工作,扩展到对什么是哲学的一般看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信