Hello,
Hoe negatief die koerante ook al uitgeskel kan word is daar huidiglik in die redaksionele en hoofartikelblad van die New York Times ’n debat oor Wittgenstein maar is ongelukkig agter ’n subskripsiemuur. Die hoop beskaam nie dus vir kwaliteit nie, dit is ’n geval van soek en jy sal vind.
Hierdie skrywer bevind homself in die vlak kant van die water wat die verstaan van Wittgenstein aangaan en is dankbaar vir enige ingeligte ontleding van waarmee Wittgenstein en filosofie besig is. Dit is welbekend dat Wittgenstein as filosoof nie veel erg aan filosofie gehad het en so sy kollegas tot raserny gedryf het. Hierdie skrywer het dit eens, filosofie is maar net nog ’n metode om sin te maak van die bestaan en die heilige grail waarvoor dit uitgehou word nie.
Dit word soos volg beskryf:
Wittgenstein claims that there are no realms of phenomena whose study is the special business of a philosopher, and about which he or she should devise profound a priori theories and sophisticated supporting arguments. There are no startling discoveries to be made of facts, not open to the methods of science, yet accessible “from the armchair” through some blend of intuition, pure reason and conceptual analysis. Indeed the whole idea of a subject that could yield such results is based on confusion and wishful thinking.
Dit is natuurlik in kontras tot die algemene denke wat die botoon voer oor filosofie:
Philosophy is respected, even exalted, for its promise to provide fundamental insights into the human condition and the ultimate character of the universe, leading to vital conclusions about how we are to arrange our lives. It’s taken for granted that there is deep understanding to be obtained of the nature of consciousness, of how knowledge of the external world is possible, of whether our decisions can be truly free, of the structure of any just society, and so on — and that philosophy’s job is to provide such understanding.
Wittgenstein het niks daarmee te doen nie en voer aan:
If so, then we are duped and bound to be disappointed, says Wittgenstein. For these are mere pseudo-problems, the misbegotten products of linguistic illusion and muddled thinking. So it should be entirely unsurprising that the “philosophy” aiming to solve them has been marked by perennial controversy and lack of decisive progress — by an embarrassing failure, after over 2000 years, to settle any of its central issues.
Daar sal dus geen poging in hierdie skrywe wees om Wittgenstein se denke tot ’n essensie te probeer reduseer nie maar eerder ’n bespreking van sy metodiek te bied.
Dit word in die “The Blue Book” soos volg beskryf deur Wittgenstein:
Our craving for generality has [as one] source … our preoccupation with the method of science. I mean the method of reducing the explanation of natural phenomena to the smallest possible number of primitive natural laws; and, in mathematics, of unifying the treatment of different topics by using a generalization. Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes, and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics, and leads the philosopher into complete darkness. I want to say here that it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is “purely descriptive.
Die ironie van die opskrif behoort nou duidelik te wees, daar was geen poging van hierdie kant af om die essensie van Wittegenstein te probeer formuleer nie, maar eerder net ’n beskrywing van sy metodiek.
Baie Dankie
Wouter
Kommentaar
Na 'n lang afwesigheid op SêNet het Wouter Ferns teruggekeer. Ek verwelkom dit, want hy lees wyd en het toegang tot talle inligtingsbronne wat vir ons gewone (en dalk armer) sterflinge geslote is. Sy hernude medewerking sal vir die webwerf ten goede wees.
Johannes Comestor