Philosophy is contemplative; and so not scientific. It is concerned with pointing out other possibilities; other ways in which it might be done. 'Vielgestalt'.
When a scientist is doing science, he isn’t contemplating science; and he is never in a position to do so.
Compare [...] a racing motorist like Sir Malcolm Campbell. If you are to make speed records like that, it’s a life’s work. Constant preoccupation with questions of how the car and the motor may be improved, and so on. Such a man cannot take the point of view: “Oh yes, you can go on trying to make speed records. This is something that may be held to be important. But perhaps it doesn’t make so very much difference. We might have no attempts at speed records, etc.” That sort of consideration must be foreign to the racing motorist. And to the scientist in the same way.
(The scientist would regard it as reactionary. So the Marxists would regard it too. For the Marxists are racing motorists.)That last line reminds me, irrelevantly, of Alexei Sayle. The reference to Malcolm Campbell also reminds me of this poem about his son.
That's about all the response I have so far though.
It is remarkable how a few choice words on philosophy show up the ethical (value) right "below the surface" without either being mentioned. That was my first thought on reading the quotes you picked out. Then again, is it remarkable or is it inevitable when it comes to contemplation?
ReplyDeleteYes, I hadn't thought of that but I think you're right. And it might be inevitable, but it's still striking.
DeletePS: thanks for drawing attention to this. Will seek it out.
ReplyDeleteseems like an interesting contrast to the idea of merely returning us to the everyday (un-bewitching our grammar)
ReplyDeleteBefore Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop wood carry water.
DeletePerhaps. But you're right, it sounds different from some of the usual accounts of what Wittgenstein is up to (including ones by him).