tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post3275393380473751095..comments2024-02-20T12:26:24.682-05:00Comments on language goes on holiday: An architectural requirementDuncan Richterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-1023697127282239232011-08-16T16:39:23.009-04:002011-08-16T16:39:23.009-04:00Thanks, Tommi!
I think I know what you mean about...Thanks, Tommi!<br /><br />I think I know what you mean about that kind of disagreement. I got the impression that it argues for (or really against) a certain way of talking. But someone might talk that way without getting anything wrong. So it could all amount to a matter of taste. But I really only glanced at it, so I could be way off.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-22727428687291251292011-08-16T14:06:33.322-04:002011-08-16T14:06:33.322-04:00From Cioffi, see especially his "When Do Empi...From Cioffi, see especially his "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NaZRqzrj6YsC&lpg=PP1&hl=fi&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">When Do Empirical Methods Bypass 'The Problems Which Trouble Us'?</a>" and "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NaZRqzrj6YsC&lpg=PP1&hl=fi&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Explanation, Self-Clarification and Solace</a>" (originally <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=216669BE2B0078E4BCAB821362F5032B.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=6268616" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/469341" rel="nofollow">here</a>). But the whole of <i>Wittgenstein on Freud and Frazer</i> is relevant, <i>passim</i>, including the introduction and the afterword.<br /><br />As far as I can remember, he never discusses <i>PI</i> §217 by name, but he is very helpful in getting one to see why, in the words of the epigraph from Moore to the former paper, Wittgenstein's "discussion of aesthetics was mingled in a curious way with criticism of assumptions which he said were made by Frazer in <i>The Golden Bough</i> and also with criticisms of Freud" - <i>and</i> how this connects closely with the "hard core" of his <i>PI</i> philosophy, as seen in glimpses in passages like the architectural bit in <i>PI</i> §217, instead of being a separable and optional side street.<br /><br />I've read Rupert's paper, but it was one of those where it proved impossible for me personally to be certain whether my disagreements with him were philosophical disagreements or merely incompatibilities of temperament. A bit like part of our Anscombe discussion here. But it's certainly one well worth reading!Tommi Uschanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02852865209279310471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-21883985152125867392011-08-16T13:24:21.786-04:002011-08-16T13:24:21.786-04:00Thanks, Tommi. One thing I've thought of doing...Thanks, Tommi. One thing I've thought of doing with this is looking at what various commentators have said about 217. I'll have to check Hallett and Cioffi.<br /><br /><a href="http://eastanglia.academia.edu/RupertRead/Papers/134078/Throwing_away_the_bedrock" rel="nofollow">Rupert Read</a> seems quite good (I've only skimmed the paper) on this.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-84093338163312084542011-08-16T12:22:33.458-04:002011-08-16T12:22:33.458-04:00And the explanation(s) offered (which end in "...<i>And the explanation(s) offered (which end in "This is simply what I do") does nothing, except satisfy our taste for such things. It isn't an explanation at all, we might say, and so the demand for an explanation is sort of empty too.</i><br /><br />Your gloss seems pretty correct to me. The next time I go to the library I must remember to look up the entry on §217 in Garth Hallett's <i>Companion to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations</i> (which is almost everything Baker and Hacker's should have been but wasn't), as I vaguely seem to remember that it was illuminating.<br /><br />The conceptual link between satisfaction (of the kind afforded by explanations) and peace of mind is clear in Germanic languages. The most common word in German for 'satisfactory', <i>befriedigend</i>, literally means 'calming' or 'pacifying'. The Swedish <i>tillfredsställande</i>, 'at-peace-putting', is more explicit still.<br /><br />(In the Frazer remarks: "Compared with the impression which the description makes on us, the explanation is too uncertain. Every explanation is an hypothesis. But an hypothetical explanation will be of little help to someone, say who is upset because of love. - It will not calm him.")<br /><br />Among Wittgensteinians to have written on this small cluster of themes, Frank Cioffi is of course unbeatable, and always worth reading. I only wish he had published more, but I can't really criticise him because I'm so grateful for whatever he <i>has</i> published.Tommi Uschanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02852865209279310471noreply@blogger.com