Mcdowell and Wittgensteinian 'Quietism'
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Continuity of Wittgenstein’s Critical Meta-Philosophy Thomas Robert Cunningham Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Stirling August 2008 Abstract This thesis investigates the continuity of Wittgenstein’s approach to, and conception of, philosophy. Part One examines the rule-following passages of the Philosophical Investigations. I argue that Wittgenstein’s remarks can only be read as interesting and coherent if we see him, as urged by prominent commentators, resisting the possibility of a certain ‘sideways-on’ perspective. There is real difficulty, however, in ascertaining what the resulting Wittgensteinian position is: whether it is position structurally analogous with Kant’s distinction between empirical realism and transcendental idealism, or whether philosophical ‘therapy’ is meant to dissolve any drive towards such idealism. I argue that both of these readings of Wittgenstein are found in the work of McDowell. Part Two argues that related issues arise in respect to the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the question of realism. In the Tractatus Wittgenstein rejects the possibility of a certain ‘sideways-on’ perspective. Again, I argue, it is unclear whether Wittgenstein embraces a form of transcendental idealism or, on the contrary, ultimately reveals the idealist position to be empty. Part Three connects ‘sideways-on’ glances with the threat of idealism by introducing a philosophical ‘measure’. I argue that the measure is a useful tool in assessment of the Tractatus, and shows that Wittgenstein was no idealist, but is less useful as an assessment of the Investigations. It yields the result that Wittgenstein succumbed to idealism, but in doing so may overlook the ‘therapeutic’ nature of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank all the staff and graduate students in the Department of Philosophy. It has been a friendly, supportive and engaging environment to carry out research. Special thanks go to my two supervisors: First, Peter Sullivan for his uncompromising standards, attention to detail and, above all, patience with my limited philosophical ability. Second, Alan Millar for his support and gentle ‘prod’ in the direction of McDowell. Thanks to Nicola for correcting a draft of the thesis. All remaining errors are, of course, my own. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for providing funding for three years of my research. On a personal level, I would like to thank all those family and friends who have helped and supported me during this period. This process has been a real emotional ‘rollercoaster’: involving the best and the worse experiences of my life so far. I can only hope that I am a better person now than when I began four years ago. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents. Our family has suffered a lot over the past few months. But at no point have I doubted their love for me, nor, I hope, have they ever doubted my love for them. This is for you. 3 Contents Introduction 6 Part One: The Philosophical Investigations 12 [1] The Primary Text: Investigations §§185-242 [1.1] Introduction 13 [1.2] Why Rule-Following? 14 [1.3] The Text 15 [1.3.1] The Internal Relationship Between a Rule and its Requirements 16 [1.3.2] The Rejection of Rule Scepticism 26 [1.3.3] Rule-Following ‘Without Reasons’ 28 [1.3.4] ‘Shared Agreement in Judgement’ and Convention 31 [1.4] A Coherent Account? 33 [1.5] Conclusion 36 [2] First Attempts to Unify the Four Themes [2.1] Introduction 37 [2.2] The Fantastical Wing: Dummett 38 [2.3] The Banal Wing: Baker and Hacker 47 [2.4] A Roadblock: Nagel 57 [2.5] Conclusion 62 [3] Modifying the Fantastical: Dummett and Wright [3.1] Introduction 64 [3.2] Dummett 65 [3.2.1] Stroud’s Objection 66 [3.2.2] The Modified View 74 [3.3] Wright 83 [3.4] Conclusion 93 [4] Moving Beyond the Banal: McDowell [4.1] Introduction 94 [4.2] “Wittgenstein on Following a Rule” 96 [4.3] Broader McDowellian Themes 108 [4.3.1] Content ‘on the surface’ 109 [4.3.2] The View From ‘Sideways-On’ 113 [4.4] Levels of Discourse 119 [4.5] Wittgenstein and Idealism 122 4 [4.6] Philosophical Therapy 128 [4.7] Conclusion 135 Part Two: The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 137 [5] The Primary Text: The Tractatus on Saying and Showing [5.1] Introduction 138 [5.2] The Inexpressibility of Form 143 [5.3] The Context Principle 156 [5.4] Attempts to Characterise the Saying / Showing Distinction 160 [5.5] Conclusion 167 [6] Diamond: A New Interpretation? [6.1] Introduction 169 [6.2] Geach on Saying and Showing 170 [6.3] Diamond 173 [6.4] Evaluation of Diamond 187 [6.5] Conclusion 193 [7] ‘Realism’ and the Tractatus [7.1] Introduction 197 [7.2] ‘World-driven’ versus ‘Language-driven’ Interpretations 198 [7.3] Rejecting the Supposed Choice 206 [7.4] A McDowellian Understanding 218 [7.5] The View From ‘Sideways-On’ 227 [7.6] Wittgenstein and Idealism 232 [7.7] Conclusion 238 Part Three: Connections and Continuity 240 [8] ‘Sideways-On’ Glances and Transcendental Idealism [8.1] Introduction 241 [8.2] A Measure 243 [8.3] The Tractatus 248 [8.4] The Investigations 264 [8.5] Conclusion 281 Bibliography 289 5 Introduction This thesis is an investigation into the continuity of the philosophical approach adopted by the early and later Wittgenstein. I will focus on the two masterpieces of Wittgenstein’s work. The ‘early’ Wittgenstein will, for the most part, be the author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The ‘later’ Wittgenstein will, for the most part, be the author of the Philosophical Investigations. My interest is not primarily the views espoused in these great texts but, rather, the underlying conception of philosophy and the philosophical method that informs them. Wittgenstein undoubtedly altered, criticised and rejected views in his later work that he himself once held. The question is whether such criticisms reflected a deep change in Wittgenstein’s philosophical approach or, on the contrary, that such an approach remained significantly unaltered. This introduction has two tasks. One: explain the motivation for investigating this topic. Two: set out the structure of the thesis by providing signposts as to the direction the discussion will take. I will address these in turn. The first motivation is the current state of Wittgenstein studies. As I see it, one crude view of the relationship between the early and later periods is under attack from another, equally crude, view. Crary, in introducing the papers that form The New Wittgenstein, tells us that: It would not be wrong to say that what is most striking about the papers in this volume has to do with their suggestion of significant continuity in Wittgenstein’s thought. These papers criticize more 6 standard interpretations of his work in so far as such interpretations furnish a narrative about the development of his thought, which, while it leaves room for important similarities between the views he holds at different times, accents the idea of a decisive break in his mode of philosophizing between the Tractatus and his later writings.1 A number of commentators have argued for a ‘decisive break’ in Wittgenstein’s thought, although the contrast has been developed in different ways. Dummett 2 has claimed that the early Wittgenstein was a ‘realist’ and the later Wittgenstein an ‘anti-realist’. Hacker has maintained that the contrast is best seen not as a replacement of one philosophical position with another, but rather as a deep-rooted change of approach to philosophical questions. For the early Wittgenstein, Hacker maintains: Philosophy is an activity of logical clarification. […] It will consist of producing clear presentations of empirical propositions by analysing them into their constituents, ultimately, if need be, into atomic propositions, and presenting this analysis in a perspicuous notation.3 Hacker reads the later Wittgenstein, in contrast, as offering a ‘therapeutic’ approach to philosophy. Such an approach is totally at odds with the one adopted in his younger life. It destroys those houses of cards, which always seem interesting, great, and important in philosophy, namely putative insights into the real, the metaphysical, structure of the universe, the essence of the world. The importance of philosophizing in the new way lies in disillusionment, in curing philosophical thought of the madness which besets it.4 1 Crary (2000), p.1-2. 2 Dummett (1991b) 3 Hacker (1972), p.26. 4 Hacker (1972), p.116. 7 The kind of view that finds voice in The New Wittgenstein complains that, contrary to standard readings (however they may be developed), there is a substantial and deep continuity in Wittgenstein’s thought. These papers have in common an understanding of Wittgenstein as aspiring, not to advance metaphysical theories, but rather to help us work ourselves out of confusions we become entangled in when philosophizing. More specifically, they agree in representing him as tracing the sources of our philosophical confusions to our tendency, in the midst of philosophizing, to think that we need to survey language from an external point of view.5 Thus, the ‘new’ interpretation regards Wittgenstein’s philosophy as ‘therapeutic’ throughout: that grasping the essence of language, of thought, or seeing our relationship to reality, will not be achieved by searching for an external standpoint. We need to recognise and accept the perspectival elements of our investigations. This ‘new’ understanding of Wittgenstein has grown in popularity in recent years. What we have in the literature, then, is a sharp contrast. One school of thought holds that there was a radical shift in Wittgenstein’s philosophical approach between the early and later periods.