Saturday, February 22, 2025

Sheer Poison? Anscombe and Wittgenstein on Philosophy of Religion

I have a new, open access publication available here. It's part of a special issue on New Work on Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Religion edited by Sebastian Sunday Grève.

Abstract 

Anscombe once said to Anthony Kenny that “On the topic of religion, Wittgenstein is sheer poison”. This paper offers an assessment of that view. I take it that Anscombe meant that Wittgenstein was a bad influence rather than that his views were necessarily false, although she seems to have been uncertain about what exactly his views were. In “Paganism, Superstition and Philosophy”, she identifies five ideas that make up “a certain current in philosophy which has a strong historical connection with Wittgenstein”. I identify some of the sources of these ideas, in Wittgenstein’s writing and in work by some of his followers, and consider what Anscombe’s objections to them might have been. I also look at whether we should think of these ideas as belonging either to Wittgenstein’s philosophy of religion or to his personal beliefs. This will involve some consideration of how far we can, or should try to, separate the personal from the philosophical. So far as he held objectionable views about religion, I argue that these ought to be considered personal rather than philosophical.

7 comments:

  1. There is a recently published book by Neil Van Leeuwen, which I know only from the review of it, that looks to be consonant with W.'s non-cognitivism about religious beliefs, though on non-Wittgensteinian grounds:

    https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/religion-as-make-believe-a-theory-of-belief-imagination-and-group-identity/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anscombe's "apparently unpublished" book review was published! In 1976, in the English Catholic weekly The Tablet (which in 1954 has been the setting for the first extended public exchange of correspondence on the correct interpretation of Wittgenstein, whence your quote about "Spinoza or Kant ... nothing of the sort" originates). I had it readily to hand, so here goes:

    https://postimg.cc/34T997Ln

    D. Z. Phillips replied at some length a month later, in his customary vein:

    https://postimg.cc/s1KKPk54
    https://postimg.cc/9rnpKy84

    I was somehow under the impression that you'd been aware of this, but somehow I'd never got around to asking you why you'd never referred to it in any of your writings. Until now, that is. As far as I know, it's the only time in history that one of Wittgenstein's three literary executors made a hostile attack on the substantive philosophy of one of the others in print.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, Tommi! Perhaps I was once aware of it, or should have been, but now I know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your comment was marked as spam for some reason (probably the very helpful links) but I have corrected that.

    ReplyDelete