wittgenstein against gay marriage ?

[tiny]

I've always fought for gay marriage but a buddy of mine says by convention, 'marriage' is usually meant as between a man and a woman.
Following Wittgenstein's "conventionalism" then, anything that deviates from this conventual meaning (ie man and man, or multiple people as Judith Butler has suggested) is not marriage.

Rather, her says, I ought to fight for a civil union between gay people that has all the same rights bestowed by marriage.

I know practically nothing about Wittgenstein. Can anyone tell me - is this line of reasoning legit?

Thanks

[Nofuture]

I think that this is stretching old shitgenstein rather far into a field he would have ''passed over in silence'' philosophically speaking. This strong ''conventionalism'' is from the earlier Wittgenstein, as recanted somewhat by the later Wittgenstein..in fact he was more into describing how these conventions occurred, rather than prescriptively assigning values to certain conventions. Basically, your friend doesn't know anything about Wittgenstein, either.

[ZeroNowhere]

Wittgenstein wasn't a 'conventionalist', he was concerned with whether statements and phrases could be given sense or not; that is, he didn't argue that they should be used in a certain way, simply investigated the conditions under which they were nonsensical. Wittgenstein's philosophy does not have to do with whether we should use the word 'gay' to refer exclusively to happy people, which is just as 'conventionalist'. He was not concerned with how to establish the meaning of a word in the dictionary sense of the term, but rather with investigating the real phenomenon of meaning which is inherent in linguistic communication.

[Meridian]

It is still a marriage even if it's between two people who are gay. It's still a marriage even if the wedding is arranged on a tiny island. It can be a marriage even if either of the people involved have multiple partners.

Wittgenstein would look at how language is used, such as when we say that two gay people are married (and my examples above), and compare that to sentences that do not make sense to us.

So you or your friend is wrong about him.

[TheCommunist]

'marriage' is usually meant as between a man and a woman.

In most cases, marriage is between a man and a woman. But if two men or two women feel they have a deep attraction to each other then who has a right to stop them

[Meridian]

In most cases, marriage is between a man and a woman. But if two men or two women feel they have a deep attraction to each other then who has a right to stop them
I am sure people here agree with you. However, the discussion was a 'philosophical' one, whether marriage between two gay people can be called "marriage". Needless to say, it can.

[Luís Henrique]

Wittgenstein or not Wittgenstein, the uses of words change. If people start using "marriage" as something that applies to people of the same sex, then "marriage" will refer to a particular kind of relations between people, regardless of their biological sex, and no use or misuse of this or that philosopher's ideas will change that.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

wittgenstein was hella gay and would constantly fuck a youthful and nubile mathematician btw

[Luís Henrique]

And, of course, at his time the word "gay" didn't mean "homosexual", so he would be probably in favour of gay marriages, as opposed to sad marriages. And what are we doing, using the word "gay" in a way that Wittgenstein didn't aprove of?

Luís Henrique

[Dumb]

Well, if we went by the "conventional" definition of marriage, we could write it off altogether as ownership of the wife by the husband - in which case we'd fight to abolish it altogether in favor of civil unions for all, I suppose.

[Queercommie Girl]

Even if Wittgenstein was homophobic, so what? As if I would care either way.

[ZeroNowhere]

Even if Wittgenstein was homophobic, so what? As if I would care either way.I'm not sure what you think that you're responding to.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not sure what you think that you're responding to.

Discuss whatever you like, but I fail to see any point in this thread at all. I don't believe in the philosophy of Wittgenstein and frankly I couldn't care less about whatever he might have said on this issue. I was just making a general point, not specifically responding to anyone.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Even if Wittgenstein was homophobic, so what? As if I would care either way.
Highly unlikely, considering that he was active in Red Vienna in the 'twenties, as a schoolteacher; guys like Magnus Hirschfeld, Hugo Bettauer, Freud, etc., were pretty open about sexual choice, even to the point that a number of them were murdered by Nazis.

[Queercommie Girl]

Highly unlikely, considering that he was active in Red Vienna in the 'twenties, as a schoolteacher; guys like Magnus Hirschfeld, Hugo Bettauer, Freud, etc., were pretty open about sexual choice, even to the point that a number of them were murdered by Nazis.

Ok. Maybe you are right. I'm just saying the fact that he supported queer rights does not put more weight on the movement, and if he actually opposed queer rights, it doesn't take away any weight from the movement either. I just don't really see it as relevant.

[Nofuture]

Counter with Saussure's concept that words are ''unmotivated signs''

[Luís Henrique]

Counter with Saussure's concept that words are ''unmotivated signs''

Ah, that untrendy, thing, linguistics - a science of language, as opposed to a philosophy of language...

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I just don't really see it as relevant.
It's relevant to any movement whether it wants to deny or admit the fact that it wasn't born yesterday.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's relevant to any movement whether it wants to deny or admit the fact that it wasn't born yesterday.

Bullshit. It isn't like Wittgenstein is a major Marxist theorist or anything.

I can just see the article in the LGBT section of a socialist organisation's website starts off by saying: "According to the philosopher Wittgenstein..."

And keep your patrionising attitude to yourself.

[Meridian]

I'm not sure what you people are talking about, but I can assure you that any interpretation of Wittgenstein's works in which they carry an anti-homosexual message (or a pro one, for that matter) is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of his works. Not because of the specific arguments Wittgenstein uses but because of the topics which his arguments cover (or do not cover).

All this bickering over Wittgenstein is useless, especially considering almost no one here seem to have actually read anything by him or about his ideas, or they have no interest to, or they have made attempts but failed and seem to rely on misinformation regarding his thoughts. All the time people chooses to use here mindlessly bickering over his ideas should be used for something more productive, actually reading Wittgenstein (or a guide to his works, such as this (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=16246)), and trying to learn would be just one helpful suggestion I could come up with.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't pretend to be an expert on Wittgenstein's philosophy, all I'm saying is that it's pointless for socialists to worry about whether or not he was queerphobic.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not sure what you people are talking about, but I can assure you that any interpretation of Wittgenstein's works in which they carry an anti-homosexual message (or a pro one, for that matter) is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of his works. Not because of the specific arguments Wittgenstein uses but because of the topics which his arguments cover (or do not cover).

All this bickering over Wittgenstein is useless, especially considering almost no one here seem to have actually read anything by him or about his ideas, or they have no interest to, or they have made attempts but failed and seem to rely on misinformation regarding his thoughts. All the time people chooses to use here mindlessly bickering over his ideas should be used for something more productive, actually reading Wittgenstein (or a guide to his works, such as this (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=16246)), and trying to learn would be just one helpful suggestion I could come up with.

Fact is - or facts are:

- Wittgenstein was not a Marxist;
- Wittgenstein was not an anarchist;
- Wittgenstein was not a socialist;
- Wittgenstein was not a leftist of any kind;
- Wittgenstein was not a working class fighter;
- Wittgenstein was not interested in politics at all;
- there is absolutely no sign that Wittgenstein even understood what capitalism is, or even noticed its existence, much less that he was in any way interested in fighting it;
- Wittgenstein was not even a gay rights activist.

So whatever his opinion was on the subject of "gay marriage" is irrelevant to us or our standing in that subject. He was against strikes, for instance - and we don't take that in account in order to inform our position on strikes.

Evidently, there is also the fact that the OP grossly misinterpretates his standing on how words work. But even if there wasn't such misinterpretation, the point still stands: we don't care about what Wittgenstein thought - except perhaps on the very limited field of philosophy of language, where his opinion might hold some weight. And even then, philosophy of language is scarcely useful to the end of fighting against the bourgeoisie, toppling capitalism, and building a classless society. Or even to the much more modest end of achieving equal rights, under capitalist domination, for people of all sexual orientations.

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

And keep your patrionising attitude to yourself.
Pretty threatening, eh? Someone who actually knows what he's talking about...

[Queercommie Girl]

Pretty threatening, eh? Someone who actually knows what he's talking about...

I'm pointing out the problem with your patronising attitude.

If you are deluded enough to think that whatever some liberal non-socialist philosopher thought has any serious consequence for Marxists and socialists, that's your choice, but don't waste other people's time by acting hyper-egoistical over this tiny little irrelevant issue.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'm pointing out the problem with your patronising attitude.

If you are deluded enough to think that whatever some liberal non-socialist philosopher thought has any serious consequence for Marxists and socialists, that's your choice, but don't waste other people's time by acting hyper-egoistical over this tiny little irrelevant issue.

The orginal post was, though phrased badly, partly about infereres drawn from wittegenstein's own philophoical views, rather than his "personal" views on gay marriage. So naturally, the issue isn't what the non socialist wittgenstein's views meant, but whether his philospohy was nessacarily anti gay marriage in some way (obviously its not) which would have bad conqueneces for those who feel wittgenstein's ideas are compatible, or can be held in concert with their socialism. Obviously it isn't very relavant if wittgenstein himself hated gays, but it is if his philospohy leads to anti gay positions which is what the op felt might be the case.

[Queercommie Girl]

Whatever, I'm done with this thread anyway.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Whatever, I'm done with this thread anyway.

http://www.babawheels.com/photos/o/19764-mad.jpg

[Luís Henrique]

If you are deluded enough to think that whatever some liberal non-socialist philosopher thought has any serious consequence for Marxists and socialists

Wittgenstein was not a liberal, he was apolitical (and socially a conservative, but this is a different issue).

Luís Henriqque

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

If you are deluded enough to think that whatever some liberal non-socialist philosopher thought...

Thank you. Wittgenstein was involved with the Socialist movement of Red Vienna in the 'twenties, as were many important personalities and thinkers you seem to believe are beyond your contempt (as most are, apparently).

I find the back-and-forth movement between a thinker's thought and actions interesting, especially when that thought evolves into something altogether different, especially when it originates in radical social thought and movement. Unfortunately I can't tell you much more about Wittgenstein's activities right now, I'm reading up on the early activities and thought of Karl Popper. Popper in 1919 was active in the Austrian Communist Party. Of course he later on became an arch-reactionary, as so many radical blowhards do. Maybe that's why you're so uncomfortable with this thread...

[Luís Henrique]

Thank you. Wittgenstein was involved with the Socialist movement of Red Vienna in the 'twenties

This is simply false. He was never involved with politics, much less progressive politics. Unless by "involved" you mean that he was friends or discussed philosophy with people who were actually involved.

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

This is simply false. He was never involved with politics, much less progressive politics.

Only to those who hold simplistic views of what political involvement is. Of course, if your idea of "political involvement" is going online and shooting off your mouth...

[Luís Henrique]

Only to those who hold simplistic views of what political involvement is. Of course, if your idea of "political involvement" is going online and shooting off your mouth...

In the twenties, he was a teacher, not in Viena, but in a series of small villages close to the capital. He wasn't "involved" with the Socialist or Communist parties, he wasn't involved with anarchist organisations, he wasn't involved with the teachers unions, he wasn't involved with any gay movement, he wasn't involved with any movement towards modifying or improving education. He just tried to teach maths to children, and when they didn't meet his unrealistic expectations, he beat them. Which led, in 1926, to his resignation from his job as a teacher, after he beat a boy so badly that the victim fainted. After that, back to Vienna, he was mainly involved in building his own house, the Haus Wittgenstein, up to 1928; at the time he described himself as an architect. Shortly after that he left for Cambridge, to resume his actual calling/karma/curse: philosophy.

What "involvement" with anything "red" did he have in the twenties, besides living in the city (oh, not even that, for the most time, but close enough) that was called "Red Vienna"?

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I'll take that as close enough, and fair enough a response, as I'm in Vienna now and I don't have the time or patience to do the primary research on Wittgenstein. There's a tendency to belittle any or everybody's involvement in Red Vienna (or the meaning of Red Vienna itself), so I'm not about to buy your argument wholesale. For one thing, you can be near certain that Wittgenstein voted for the "Reds," he was Jewish and progressive, who else was there to vote for? Second: You wayyy underestimate how politicized any kind of activity involving education was at that time. Otto Gloeckel, the Social Democrat reformer who led the school education reform movement, was bumped by the fascists, and eventually got tossed in a concentration camp. (A lot of wannabe radicals like Paul Lazarsfeld and Karl Popper had experiences with teaching parallel to Wittgenstein's at the same time, including the brutality bit.) So I still have to ask what kind of school Wittgenstein was teaching in, for starters: what the educational "philosophy" was; what expectations he came in with, and how those expectations were disappointed - political expectations about one's ability to effectuate SOCIALIST education, whatever that was: Bildung, Erziehung, Erkenntnis,Paedagogik? You tell me... To argue that those experience had no effect on Wittgenstein's epistemological thought is as ridiculous as arguing that Popper's similar experiences had no effect on his later Marx-bashing, in The Open Society and elsewhere.

Finally: a half-hour from where I am now there is a plaque in the floor of the main stairwell of the Uni. of Vienna. It commemorates the spot where Moritz Schlick, the leader of the Vienna Circle of philosophers, was smoked by a.... well, it was claimed by his fascist lawyers that the killer was just crazy (he got a few months in the sanatorium and was released). In fact, he was likely shot for being too political to begin with, that's certainly how the fascist faculty gloated about it. Very little doubt that the same, or worse, would have happened to Wittgenstein if he'd stayed. That's political enough for me.

Be well.

[Luís Henrique]

I'll take that as close enough, and fair enough a response, as I'm in Vienna now and I don't have the time or patience to do the primary research on Wittgenstein. There's a tendency to belittle any or everybody's involvement in Red Vienna (or the meaning of Red Vienna itself), so I'm not about to buy your argument wholesale.

In other words, you can't point to a single fact that would lead us into believing that Wittgenstein was actually active in Austrian politics.


For one thing, you can be near certain that Wittgenstein voted for the "Reds," he was Jewish and progressive, who else was there to vote for?

Lots of people vote for the "Reds" (which in this case would quite certainly be the socialdemocrats, not the communists) and yet are not involved in politics at all. On the other hand, as far as we know, Wittgenstein could have as well abstained from voting, or could have voted on a non-political reasoning. He certainly didn't write about his votes either in his diaries and notebooks or in his mail.

The argument that he must have voted "red" (even if this "red" was a worn-out light pink like the OSPD) because he was Jewish doesn't hold, too. Many Jews supported the right, some even the anti-semitic right. I don't suppose, for instance, that Karl Wittgenstein, Ludwig's father, who was also "Jewish" ever even dreamed about voting "red". Besides that, Ludwig, albeit being "Jewish" - as in "having Jewish granparents" - despised Judaism. The same goes, by the way, for his homosexuality - he was homosexual, much more than Jewish, but he despised himself for it (must have been a miserable life, Jewish but despising the Jewry, homosexual but loathing homosexuality, despising philosophy but being unable to find any other stable job besides philosophy).


Second: You wayyy underestimate how politicized any kind of activity involving education was at that time. Otto Gloeckel, the Social Democrat reformer who led the school education reform movement, was bumped by the fascists, and eventually got tossed in a concentration camp. (A lot of wannabe radicals like Paul Lazarsfeld and Karl Popper had experiences with teaching parallel to Wittgenstein's at the same time, including the brutality bit.)

No, I don't underestimate the politicisation of education in the twenties. But this only underlines Wittgesntein utter apoliticism: while others were involved in a "school education reform movement", Wittgenstein was teaching maths in conventional schools, and ostensibly not taking part in any movement for the reform of education and/or schools.


So I still have to ask what kind of school Wittgenstein was teaching in, for starters: what the educational "philosophy" was; what expectations he came in with, and how those expectations were disappointed - political expectations about one's ability to effectuate SOCIALIST education, whatever that was: Bildung, Erziehung, Erkenntnis,Paedagogik?

If it was any of these, I am pretty sure it would be mentioned in his biographies... which it isn't. The conclusion is pretty obvious: Austrian official schools - and not those in Vienna, where the general atmosphere would have influenced them more, but village schools.

He never had any expectations about "socialist" education at all. His expectations where the normal expectations of a math teacher: that his pupils would, you know, learn maths. When they failed to do so, Wittgenstein beat them - which was the normal, conventional practice of the times. But evidently he went too far in his normal conventional practice, because the parents got angry at that, and called the police.


You tell me... To argue that those experience had no effect on Wittgenstein's epistemological thought is as ridiculous as arguing that Popper's similar experiences had no effect on his later Marx-bashing, in The Open Society and elsewhere.

Well, the claim is yours; if such experiences (whatever they are; his own experiences seem to have nothing to do with the movements you are talking about, in which he had no part) had effects on Wittgenstein's thought, it's up to you to show us what such influences were.


Finally: a half-hour from where I am now there is a plaque in the floor of the main stairwell of the Uni. of Vienna. It commemorates the spot where Moritz Schlick, the leader of the Vienna Circle of philosophers, was smoked by a.... well, it was claimed by his fascist lawyers that the killer was just crazy (he got a few months in the sanatorium and was released). In fact, he was likely shot for being too political to begin with, that's certainly how the fascist faculty gloated about it.

Well, Moritz Schlick was gunned down by a Nazi, not Wittgenstein. And the Nazis shot down, or otherwise murdered, many people who weren't socialists or even socialdemocrats: liberals, conservatives, dissident Nazis (Roehmer, remember?), apolitical people of all sorts (Jews, first and most, Gypsies, intellectuals who wouldn't toe the Nazi line, scientists who fostered quantic or relativistic physics, etc, etc, etc). What next, Admiral Canaris was involved in the red left because he was hanged by the Nazis?


Very little doubt that the same, or worse, would have happened to Wittgenstein if he'd stayed. That's political enough for me.

It doesn't seem that it was political enough for him, considering his part in the deal to accomodate his relatives situation within Nazi Germany.

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Funny that a guy who claims to know logic is so intent on disproving a negative. Come back when you're interested in arguing the following, which happens to be my original question:

"What is the progressive content of Wittgenstein's theory and praxis?" (Originally raised in terms of his purported homophobia.

As it is, I'm really not interested in arguing who's got the biggest radical dick. Not to mention your patronizing, ignorant, and Jew-baiting rants.

[Meridian]

Fact is - or facts are:

- Wittgenstein was not a Marxist;
- Wittgenstein was not an anarchist;
- Wittgenstein was not a socialist;
- Wittgenstein was not a leftist of any kind;
- Wittgenstein was not a working class fighter;

What does this have to do with anything at all? Wittgenstein's contributions were philosophical, or a critique of philosophy. They do not interfere with Marxist economical concepts or political goals. I already said that if they are understood as a critique or endorsement of gay-marriage, they are radically misunderstood.


- Wittgenstein was not interested in politics at all;
There are sources which repudiate this claim. Nonetheless, it is entirely insignificant in this thread, which is about Wittgenstein's philosophy.


Evidently, there is also the fact that the OP grossly misinterpretates his standing on how words work. But even if there wasn't such misinterpretation, the point still stands: we don't care about what Wittgenstein thought - except perhaps on the very limited field of philosophy of language, where his opinion might hold some weight. And even then, philosophy of language is scarcely useful to the end of fighting against the bourgeoisie, toppling capitalism, and building a classless society. Or even to the much more modest end of achieving equal rights, under capitalist domination, for people of all sexual orientations.
Who are "we"? Are you talking about people who visit the RevLeft site, or the subgroup of people who visit the Philosophy forum specifically? I do not either think that philosophy of language is useful for ending capitalism (at least not directly), or for achieving equal rights (or some similar catch-phrase), but I must say I find it odd if anyone lets that stop them from reading into it and educating themselves.

[Luís Henrique]

Funny that a guy who claims to know logic is so intent on disproving a negative.

From where do you people take this absurd notion that it is impossible to prove a negative? And now, more interestingly even, from where comes the notion that, since it would be "impossible to prove a negative", any afirmative can be made, without need of any factual support?

In other words, "there are no such things as unicorns" is a negative; according to your theory, it is impossible to prove. And now it seems that se can safely say that unicorns actually exist, since it would be impossible to prove otherwise!


Come back when you're interested in arguing the following, which happens to be my original question:I come back when I want.


"What is the progressive content of Wittgenstein's theory and praxis?" This is not the discussion here.


(Originally raised in terms of his purported homophobia.What purported homophobia? People merely said that whether he was or not homophobic, it doesn't make difference to us, because we happen to not take his social views in account when forming our opinions.


As it is, I'm really not interested in arguing who's got the biggest radical dick.No, you are interested in telling a tale: that Wittgenstein was an active leftist, which he wasn't. It happens, not everybody is into politics; Wittgenstein was one that wasn't.

As for me, I am not interested at all in "comparing radical dicks". I don't like Stalin, but he was (unhappily) involved in leftist politics; it would be absurd to deny that. What I am interested is in not letting a completely fantastic narrative of Wittgenstein's life morphing into uninformed consensus here.


Not to mention your patronizing, ignorant, and Jew-baiting rants.When someone complains about your patronising attitudes, you get very upset, but it doesn't stop from calling others patronising. And where have I ever wrote something remotely "Jew-baiting"?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What does this have to do with anything at all? Wittgenstein's contributions were philosophical, or a critique of philosophy. They do not interfere with Marxist economical concepts or political goals. I already said that if they are understood as a critique or endorsement of gay-marriage, they are radically misunderstood.

Exactly. It seems that we agree on this: Wittgenstein's writings were not political, and trying to infer political consequences from them, as in the OP, is bogus.


There are sources which repudiate this claim. Nonetheless, it is entirely insignificant in this thread, which is about Wittgenstein's philosophy.

Unhappily, no; this thread is about supposed political consequences of Wittgenstein philosophy. Or it was originally about that; it now seems to have morphed into a discussion of his biography - or of his "alternate biography", in which he is reported as doing things he never actually did.


Who are "we"? Are you talking about people who visit the RevLeft site, or the subgroup of people who visit the Philosophy forum specifically?

We, Marxists and anarchists.


I do not either think that philosophy of language is useful for ending capitalism (at least not directly), or for achieving equal rights (or some similar catch-phrase), but I must say I find it odd if anyone lets that stop them from reading into it and educating themselves.

Sure, not everything in life is the struggle for socialism. Which also means that we can perfectly like and understand things like Einstein's physics, Brahms' music, or Wittgenstein's philosophy, without the need of fantasising the supposed involvement of Einstein, Brahms, or Wittgenstein with leftist politics.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I must say I find it odd if anyone lets that stop them from reading into [philosophy of language] and educating themselves.

Curiously, though, such willfully ignorant views are more often found among the Wittgensteinians here. Heraclitus? Rulling class stooge. Plato? Babbling ruling class stooge. Aristotle? Totally outdated. Epicurus? What's he doing in this discussion? Augustine, Duns Scotus, Aquinas? Mystical ruling class stooges. Vico? Ruling class stooge. Spinoza? Mystical ruling class stooge. Hegel? Babbling mystical ruling class stooge, only useful for conversations between reactionary statesmen like Mao and Kissinger. Sartre? Never read him, but was a philosopher, all philosophy is bogus, so he must be bogus too. Freud? Cocaine-sniffing rulling class stooge. Nietzsche, Schoppenhauer, Kierkegaard, Fichte, Hobbes, you name them? Don't read, mystical babblers on the pay of the rulling class.

Luís Henrique

ETA. The above shouldn't be read as an endorsement of all, or any, of the mentioned philosophers. It is rather the fostering of ignorance that I am addressing; whatever the value, or lack thereof, of each of them, recommending young people not to read them is an awful thing to do.

[Desperado]

So whatever his opinion was on the subject of "gay marriage" is irrelevant to us or our standing in that subject. He was against strikes, for instance - and we don't take that in account in order to inform our position on strikes.


If it had a worthwhile argument then it obviously would be relevant to our standing on the subject. Because I am a leftist does not mean I am not a freethinker - indeed, the former stems from the latter.


Don't read, mystical babblers on the pay of the rulling class.

The fact that they are on the pay of the ruling class does not automatically make them wrong. In many cases it makes it more likely, but we can only infer that after reading them and then placing into context rather than the other way around.

[Luís Henrique]

If it had a worthwhile argument then it obviously would be relevant to our standing on the subject. Because I am a leftist does not mean I am not a freethinker - indeed, the former stems from the latter.

Well, I am a freethinker, and this stems from me being a leftist, not the other way round.

Of course, relevant arguments are relevant, even if they come from non-leftists. But the OP was obviously an argumentum ad autoritatem - Wittgenstein said (or rather, Wittgenstein could be interpreted as saying) this, so we should ponder this. And, being an argumentum ad autoritatem, it would only be a reasonable argument if Wittgenstein was an actual authority on the issues of leftism or gay movement, which he, of course, wasn't.


The fact that they are on the pay of the ruling class does not automatically make them wrong. In many cases it makes it more likely, but we can only infer that after reading them and then placing into context rather than the other way around.I don't believe they were on the pay of the ruling class; and yes, reading them and placing them into context would be the correct attitude. That was, if you observe the hidden marks, indeed my point: the Wittgensteinians here like to tell us to throw everybody else into Hume's bonfire, and then argue that others are fostering willful ignorance when we point out that Wittgenstein is, by and large, totally irrelevant to the socialist movement. (Which, again, for the half-wit readers, doesn't mean he is irrelevant at all - just that he cannot be spammed into the philosophy section of a revolutionary leftist forum as the end all be all of all philosophy and remedy for all the left shortcomings).

Luís Henrique

[LJJW]

You argued as follows Luis:


the Wittgensteinians here like to tell us to throw everybody else into Hume's bonfire, and then argue that others are fostering willful ignorance when we point out that Wittgenstein is, by and large, totally irrelevant to the socialist movement. (Which, again, for the half-wit readers, doesn't mean he is irrelevant at all - just that he cannot be spammed into the philosophy section of a revolutionary leftist forum as the end all be all of all philosophy and remedy for all the left shortcomings).


I'd like to see where any of them have said this.

They might have said this of certain metaphysicians, but few, if any would want to throw Aristotle's works on Hume's bonfire, or even that of Leibniz. I could mention a few others they'd want to keep safe too, but I'll leave that to your imagination.:)

Of course, if you can show there is any merit in the work of other ruling-class thinkers, I'd be interested to see what it is. However, like Rosa, I have been reading this material now for well over 25 years, and have yet to find much that is worth keeping, and which isn't non-sensical, or worse.

[LJJW]

Tiny posted this:



I've always fought for gay marriage but a buddy of mine says by convention, 'marriage' is usually meant as between a man and a woman.
Following Wittgenstein's "conventionalism" then, anything that deviates from this conventual meaning (ie man and man, or multiple people as Judith Butler has suggested) is not marriage.

Rather, her says, I ought to fight for a civil union between gay people that has all the same rights bestowed by marriage.

I know practically nothing about Wittgenstein. Can anyone tell me - is this line of reasoning legit?

I think you might be confusing conventionalism with being conventional in one's ethics and behaviour.

Now, a case can be made for arguing that Wittgenstein was a conventionalist, but he was one of a rather unique sort. For classical conventionalists, truths, for example, followed from conventions human beings set up, and these truths are a direct consequence of the meaning of words set by those conventions (and, of course, a comaprison with reality).

This is not so for Wittgenstein, for whom conventions are based on social practices; how we use words not only shows what conventions we have adopted, it constitutes them. He had good reason to argue this way, but we can go into that in another thread.

Now, as far as i can tell from his work (published and unpublished) I can't see why he'd have objected to gay marriage -- in fact he was quite unconventional in his own life. But, since this question never arose in his lifetime, to say any more about what he would have done would be to substitute speculation for fact.

But, who cares what he would have said? As Luis points out, Wittgenstein was no god. To say the least, it's up to us to make our own minds up on this.

[LJJW]

In another post, Luis, you argued as follows:


Fact is - or facts are:

- Wittgenstein was not a Marxist;
- Wittgenstein was not an anarchist;
- Wittgenstein was not a socialist;
- Wittgenstein was not a leftist of any kind;
- Wittgenstein was not a working class fighter;
- Wittgenstein was not interested in politics at all;
- there is absolutely no sign that Wittgenstein even understood what capitalism is, or even noticed its existence, much less that he was in any way interested in fighting it;
- Wittgenstein was not even a gay rights activist.

So whatever his opinion was on the subject of "gay marriage" is irrelevant to us or our standing in that subject. He was against strikes, for instance - and we don't take that in account in order to inform our position on strikes.

Evidently, there is also the fact that the OP grossly misinterpretates his standing on how words work. But even if there wasn't such misinterpretation, the point still stands: we don't care about what Wittgenstein thought - except perhaps on the very limited field of philosophy of language, where his opinion might hold some weight. And even then, philosophy of language is scarcely useful to the end of fighting against the bourgeoisie, toppling capitalism, and building a classless society. Or even to the much more modest end of achieving equal rights, under capitalist domination, for people of all sexual orientations.


Unfortunately, I can't post any links yet, but it has already been shown here that Wittgenstein came as close to being a Marxist as one could get without actually being one, certainly closer to class politics than any major thinker since Marx himself.

As soon as I can post links, I'll do so.

And he was interested in politics; if you read the conversations he had with Norman Malcolm, or Rhush Rhees, for example, you will see he was interested in politics.

Maybe not as much as we are here, but he certainly wasn't indifferent toward it.

But, on the basis of what do you say he was "against strikes"?

He was quite vocal in his support of the 1917 revolution (and the October insurrection), so why he'd balk at strikes is rather mysterious.

And while you might be formally correct when you say this:



And even then, philosophy of language is scarcely useful to the end of fighting against the bourgeoisie, toppling capitalism, and building a classless society. Or even to the much more modest end of achieving equal rights, under capitalist domination, for people of all sexual orientations.



You must know that if we have an incorrect view of language (like you find in Hegel), it can't fail to affect our core theory -- which is just one reason why dialectical materialism is non-sensical.

And, as Rosa has pointed out here many times, this has helped in it's own small way to make our movement almost synonymous with failure.

After all, as Marx argued:



The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.


[This is from The German Ideology; bold added.]

Confused philosophy leads to confused comrades and thus confused parties.

So, the criticism of language is, or should be, central to Marxist Philosophy.

[Luís Henrique]

I'd like to see where any of them have said this.

Things like:


Of course not, it's all nonsense.

"Crap".

The "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" is the traditional bit of all dialectics (for example Socrates' method), which can't really be argued against. But the Hegelian dialectic goes into far more mumbo-jumbo, with some nonsensical idealism and then meaningless statements about "unity of opposites" and "quantity into quality". The point is you're not meant to understand - like an awful lot of philosophy, it's some therapeutic catchphrases without any real-world basis made by a misuse of language.

Philosophy at least the way students of philosophy explain it is intentionally complicated and over blown to keep it within their special little club.

Someone who can't explain themselves in ordinary language is shit at explaining themselves. Philosophy in general uses language which is inaccessible to the normal person, it's an elitist club.

Interesting to see two members of the ruling-class point out how Hegel influenced them.

Plato influenced all Western philosophy
I don't think that's much of a commendation.

Existentialism is the same as anyother philosophy; it is based on a distortion of ordinary language and, therefore, has no meaning. Existentialists typically (from what I've seen) misused terms such as "meaning," and I'm pretty sure it was Sarte who misused terms like "Being" and "Nothingness". Could be wrong on that one, I'm not expert on existentialism.

Seem to show that the ideology of "ordinary language" can easily be used as a pretext for willful ignorance. Now, I know that not all those people are actually influenced by Wittgenstein; they have merely found in the interpretation of his works' by Ms Lichtenstein and others a suitable excuse for their antiintellectualism. Those who have been really influenced by Wittgenstein, though, fail to dissociate from such kind of nihilist snobbery.


Of course, if you can show there is any merit in the work of other ruling-class thinkers, I'd be interested to see what it is. However, like Rosa, I have been reading this material now for well over 25 years, and have yet to find much that is worth keeping, and which isn't non-sensical, or worse.

Let's see, Aquinas, Augustine, Spinoza, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Plato, Epictetus, Epicurus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Ockham, Scotus, Montaigne, Morus, Erasmus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Beccaria, Kant, Fichte, Schoppenhauer, Nietzsche, Croce, Bentham, Smith, Ricardo, Newton, Euclid, Ptolomeus, Vico, Freud, Macchiavelli, Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Weber, Schumpeter, Mommsen, Ranke, Comte...

Not that we should agree with what those guys said or thought, but that you can't actually reject them without minimally understanding what they said and where they stood from (and, indeed, the penalty for an acritical "rejection" may well be the return of their uncriticised ideas under other forms).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Unfortunately, I can't post any links yet, but it has already been shown here that Wittgenstein came as close to being a Marxist as one could get without actually being one, certainly closer to class politics than any major thinker since Marx himself.

Here is a list of major thinkers much closer to class politics than Wittgenstein:

Engels, Labriola, Mariátegui, Marcuse, Sartre, Sraffa, Kalecky, Anderson, Lenin, Hill, Bukharin, Genovese, Luxemburg, Brenner, Sweezy, Baran, Trotsky...


And he was interested in politics; if you read the conversations he had with Norman Malcolm, or Rhush Rhees, for example, you will see he was interested in politics.

My aunt was also interested in politics, she would discuss it with her friends and relatives. That doesn't make her a political thinker - and Wittgenstein's ocasional remarks on political issues don't make him a political thinker either.


Maybe not as much as we are here, but he certainly wasn't indifferent toward it.

He wasn't interested in it as a thinker.


But, on the basis of what do you say he was "against strikes"?


I believe that bad housekeeping within the state fosters bad housekeeping in families. A workman who is constantly ready to go on strike will not bring up his children to respect order either.

Luís Henrique

[Aspiring Humanist]

Who gives a shit about Wittgenstein
Anyone who labels themself with someone elses name followed by an "ist" has identity issues anyway

[Meridian]

Who gives a shit about Wittgenstein
Anyone who labels themself with someone elses name followed by an "ist" has identity issues anyway
I suspect you are here talking about the hordes of "Wittgensteinists"... Quite right, they do have identity issues, in that they do not exist.

I have a sneaking suspicion you have read 0 pages of anything Wittgenstein has written, much less actually studied anything of him to generate an understanding.

By the way, your perspective leads one to draw the conclusion that this site is in fact a support group for people with identity issues.

[ZeroNowhere]

Who gives a shit about WittgensteinWhereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Aspiring Humanist]

I suspect you are here talking about the hordes of "Wittgensteinists"... Quite right, they do have identity issues, in that they do not exist.

I have a sneaking suspicion you have read 0 pages of anything Wittgenstein has written, much less actually studied anything of him to generate an understanding.

By the way, your perspective leads one to draw the conclusion that this site is in fact a support group for people with identity issues.

I have a sneaking suspicion you are an elitist asshole who thinks himself holier than thou when it comes to philosophy

[Meridian]

I have a sneaking suspicion you are an elitist asshole who thinks himself holier than thou when it comes to philosophy
It wasn't I who proclaimed that 90% of the users of this site have identity issues.

I realize now how insensitive and "elitist" it is of me to request that someone educates themselves and reads what they have written before they go around bashing a thinker.

[Luís Henrique]

Who gives a shit about Wittgenstein
Anyone who labels themself with someone elses name followed by an "ist" has identity issues anyway

:rolleyes:

You have just lost an excellent opportunity to "pass in silence" over whatever...

Luís Henrique

[ZeroNowhere]

I have a sneaking suspicion you are an elitist asshole who thinks himself holier than thou when it comes to philosophyI have a sneaking suspicion that you have nothing to contribute to this thread, pseudo-psychological trolling aside.

[Luís Henrique]

I have a sneaking suspicion that you have nothing to contribute to this thread, pseudo-psychological trolling aside.

That's unfair; he contributed by creating an otherwise unthinkable (yes, I am being naughty) unanimity between the Wittgensteinians and anti-Wittgensteinians here...

Luís Henrique

[Apoi_Viitor]

That's unfair; he contributed by creating an otherwise unthinkable (yes, I am being naughty) unanimity between the Wittgensteinians and anti-Wittgensteinians here...

Damn you, Lenin!

[JimFar]

Here is a list of major thinkers much closer to class politics than Wittgenstein:

Engels, Labriola, Mariátegui, Marcuse, Sartre, Sraffa, Kalecky, Anderson, Lenin, Hill, Bukharin, Genovese, Luxemburg, Brenner, Sweezy, Baran, Trotsky...


But all those people called themselves Marxists. Wittgenstein did not. Nevertheless, of the list of prominent non-Marxist thinkers of the past century, he arguably did come the closest to Marxism, of the bunch.

[JimFar]

Fact is - or facts are:

- Wittgenstein was not a Marxist;
- Wittgenstein was not an anarchist;
- Wittgenstein was not a socialist;
- Wittgenstein was not a leftist of any kind;
- Wittgenstein was not a working class fighter;
- Wittgenstein was not interested in politics at all;
- there is absolutely no sign that Wittgenstein even understood what capitalism is, or even noticed its existence, much less that he was in any way interested in fighting it;
- Wittgenstein was not even a gay rights activist.



I suspect that Luis might be confusing Wittgenstein's earlier political positions with his later ones. There is reason to believe that his earlier politics was conservative. During the First World War, he joined the Austrian Army as an officer with some degree of enthusiasm. Like the rest of his family, he was a strong supporter of the multinational Habsburg Empire. But that empire would be smashed to pieces as a consequence of that war. We know that by the 1930s he had become a strong supporter of the Soviet Union. He even turned to his good friend John Maynard Keynes (who had lots of contacts with the Soviet Emabassy in London), to help him to emigrate to the Soviet Union. Wittgenstein wished to live in the Soviet Union as a simple manual worker. Barring that, he was willing to retrain as a physician, and pursue a career as a general practitioner in the USSR. The Soviets, however, made it clear that they would only permit him to live there providing that he would accept an academic post as a lecturer in logic or philosophy. However, to Wittgenstein, being a lecturer or a professor was a fate worse than death, so he never did emigrate to the Soviet Union.

[Luís Henrique]

But all those people called themselves Marxists. Wittgenstein did not. Nevertheless, of the list of prominent non-Marxist thinkers of the past century, he arguably did come the closest to Marxism, of the bunch.

Being close to Marxism is one thing, being close to class struggle is another. What relation did he have to class struggle? Did he even ever noticed the existence of social classes? On the other hand, what relation did he have to Marxism? Is there any indication that he ever read anything by Marx or any Marxist writer?

I am sorry, but what I see is a philosopher completely removed from practical politics or political practice, who seems to seldom have even wondered about society, much less about social inequality, and even less about the causes of social inequality.

I would say that, even if you restrict the universe to non-Marxist thinkers, there would still be lots of prominent thinkers that were closer to class struggle than Wittgenstein. Russell, obviously, Einstein, Keynes, Veblen, Hannah Arendt, Barthes, Baudrillard, Isaiah Berlin, Simone Weil, for instance.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I suspect that Luis might be confusing Wittgenstein's earlier political positions with his later ones. There is reason to believe that his earlier politics was conservative. During the First World War, he joined the Austrian Army as an officer with some degree of enthusiasm. Like the rest of his family, he was a strong supporter of the multinational Habsburg Empire. But that empire would be smashed to pieces as a consequence of that war. We know that by the 1930s he had become a strong supporter of the Soviet Union. He even turned to his good friend John Maynard Keynes (who had lots of contacts with the Soviet Emabassy in London), to help him to emigrate to the Soviet Union. Wittgenstein wished to live in the Soviet Union as a simple manual worker. Barring that, he was willing to retrain as a physician, and pursue a career as a general practitioner in the USSR. The Soviets, however, made it clear that they would only permit him to live there providing that he would accept an academic post as a lecturer in logic or philosophy. However, to Wittgenstein, being a lecturer or a professor was a fate worse than death, so he never did emigrate to the Soviet Union.

His attraction to the Soviet Union, however, seems to have had nothing to do with politics. Rather it seems that Wittgenstein had a problem with being an intellectual, and yearned for a simple, unsophisticated existence as a manual labourer (or, perhaps, yearned for symbolic punishment for his perceived faults). Thence his attempts at living a 'useful' life - as a soldier, a teacher, a gardner, a bureaucratic employee at a public pharmacy, etc, culminating with his attempt to become a manual worker in the Soviet Union (probably partially motivated by the common anti-communist fantasy about 'reeducation' of intellectuals through hard labour in the SU). In other words, he seemed to be in pursuit of some kind of hell where he could pay for his sins, and the Soviet Union for a brief time seemed a suitable one. But I see no signs that this translated, in any way, into political support for the Soviet Union, not even in the Sidney/Beatrice Webb fashion of support for the Soviet State without any consideration of working class issues.

Luís Henrique

[Philosopher Jay]

I think the fact that he visited the Soviet Union at a time that there was an intense boycott of the Soviet Union was a sign of political support. One does not necessarily have to use words to show support.

[Luís Henrique]

I think the fact that he visited the Soviet Union at a time that there was an intense boycott of the Soviet Union was a sign of political support. One does not necessarily have to use words to show support.

And what did he support? Something that happened in 1917, or what was actually going on in the SU at the time of his visit?

The revolution or Stalin's Termidor?

Luís Henrique

[Philosopher Jay]

Hi Luís,

This is a good question:
Here is what one biographical site (http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/biogre9.html) says:



On 12 September Wittgenstein arrived in Leningrad. There he met the author and educator Guryevich at the Northern Institute, then an autonomous faculty of Leningrad University. On the evening of the following day he travelled on to Moscow, arriving there on the morning of the 14th. Here he had contacts with various western Europeans and Americans, including the correspondent of the Daily Worker, Pat Sloane. Most of his discussions, however, were with scientists, for example the young mathematician Yanovskaya and the philosopher Yushevich from Moscow University, who were both close to so-called Mach Marxism and the Vienna Circle. He was invited by the philosopher Tatiana Nikolayeva Gornstein, a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, to teach philosophy at Leningrad University. He traveled to Kazakhstan, where he was offered a chair at the famous university where Tolstoy once studied. On 1 October he was back in Cambridge. The trip was shorter than planned, and it appears that he had given up the idea of settling in Russia.
His friend Gilbert Pattison, who picked him up from the ship on his return, recalled that Wittgenstein’s view was that he could not live there himself: One could live there, but only if one kept in mind the whole time that one could never speak one’s mind. ... It is as though one were to spend the rest of one’s life in an army, any army, and that is a rather difficult thing for people who are educated. (Interview with Pattison)


The situation was quite complex at the time. He visited the Soviet Union in 1935 and I believe things got a lot worse only in 1936 when the Moscow show trials started.

I think people underestimate the effect Adolf Hitler had on Stalin. Stalin was in no way the equivalent of Hitler, but he was pragmatic. He noted that Adolf Hitler had ripped up all democratic norms violently and ruthlessly eliminating his opposition from1933 through 1935. He was preparing the country for immediate war against the Soviet Union. Stalin simply adopted the violent wartime measures that had worked for Hitler. We should recognize that it was done in a modified form and was not the same as the insane and mindless sadism of the Nazis.

In any case, I think the important thing to remember about Wittgenstein is that he was not anti-gay marriage nor anti-Soviet. I don't think his philosophy is particularly Marxist, but neither is it anti-Marxist. There are many things in it quite compatible with a Marxist outlook. He was anti-metaphysical and understood that language only had meaning within an historical-human context.


And what did he support? Something that happened in 1917, or what was actually going on in the SU at the time of his visit?

The revolution or Stalin's Termidor?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Hi Luís,

This is a good question:
Here is what one biographical site (http://www.wittgen-cam.ac.uk/biogre9.html) says:


On 12 September Wittgenstein arrived in Leningrad. There he met the author and educator Guryevich at the Northern Institute, then an autonomous faculty of Leningrad University. On the evening of the following day he travelled on to Moscow, arriving there on the morning of the 14th. Here he had contacts with various western Europeans and Americans, including the correspondent of the Daily Worker, Pat Sloane. Most of his discussions, however, were with scientists, for example the young mathematician Yanovskaya and the philosopher Yushevich from Moscow University, who were both close to so-called Mach Marxism and the Vienna Circle. He was invited by the philosopher Tatiana Nikolayeva Gornstein, a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, to teach philosophy at Leningrad University. He traveled to Kazakhstan, where he was offered a chair at the famous university where Tolstoy once studied. On 1 October he was back in Cambridge. The trip was shorter than planned, and it appears that he had given up the idea of settling in Russia.
His friend Gilbert Pattison, who picked him up from the ship on his return, recalled that Wittgenstein’s view was that he could not live there himself: One could live there, but only if one kept in mind the whole time that one could never speak one’s mind. ... It is as though one were to spend the rest of one’s life in an army, any army, and that is a rather difficult thing for people who are educated. (Interview with Pattison)So this shows that he actually didn't support Stalinism. Good for him. What does that say about his grasp of political situations? Hadn't he noticed the nature of the Stalinist regime before going there? What were his particular dellusions about the regime? Did he ever believe it had anything to do with the working class? (Other people failed, or even refused, to see what Stalinism was, out of a misguided loyalty to the very Revolution that Stalinism betrayed - but how would that be the case for a thinker who, as far as I am informed, never spent two seconds of his time wondering about the Russian Revolution?)


In any case, I think the important thing to remember about Wittgenstein is that he was not anti-gay marriage nor anti-Soviet. I don't think his philosophy is particularly Marxist, but neither is it anti-Marxist. There are many things in it quite compatible with a Marxist outlook. He was anti-metaphysical and understood that language only had meaning within an historical-human context.No, he wasn't anti-gay marriage; he doesn't seem to have been pro-gay marriage either. This was not what he was thinking about; his subject was different, and he cared little for whatever was not his subject - at least at at a theoretical level.

His philosophy isn't anti-Marxist in the sence that he didn't purposefully set out to find a theoretical refutation of Marxism (like Weber or Böhm-Bawerk, for instance, did). I am not sure at all that its foundations aren't mutually exclusive regarding the foundations of Marxism. At best, his views are taken from a different point, implying a wholly different perspective.

"Anti-metaphysical" means different things for different people, and I am far from sure that his peculiar way of being "anti-metaphysical" shouldn't be considered "metaphysical" itself from a Marxist point of view (and, conversely, that he wouldn't dismiss Marxism as a form of "metaphysics" if he ever deigned to pay any attention to Marxism).

And I think the part on "understood that language only had meaning within an historical-human context" is simply false. He lacked any sence of History; doesn't seem to have been interested in History at all; his method in Philosophical Investigations manifestly fails to take History in account, everything being phrased and considered as if language magically emerged ex-nihilo a second ago. He doesn't even seem to take into consideration the differences and contrasts between different modern languages - he talks about "looking at how words are used" but doesn't seem to notice the contrasts between the way they are used, for instance, in German and English, two languages he was fluent in.

Luís Henrique

[Philosopher Jay]

Hi Luis Henrique,

I haven't read "Philosophical Investigations" in quite a while, ten years, and only remember Wittgenstein emphasizing the functionality of language and his comparison of it to a game with rules. It seems to me to be an important and even progressive concept, fully compatible with the idea that the workingclass can change the rules of capitalism at any moment through a worldwide revolution.

I am often amazed by how influenced the great minds of the early 20th century were by Marx. They are sometimes incorrectly classed as bourgeois and their ideas dismissed as bourgeois, but if one examines them carefully, one finds they have developed many ideas that Marx briefly noted in his studies.

For example, reading Sylvia Plath's "A Room of One's Own," one is astonished to find this feminist writer expounding a clearly materialist philosophy that women's oppression historically has an economic base. Sigmund Freud's amazing analysis of symbol transformation in dreams can be seen as borrowing from Marx's analysis of the transformation of commodities in Das Kapital. Could any of D.H. Lawrence's or James Joyce's great novels exploring the lives and thoughts of working class people have been written without the influence of Marx and the workingclass socialist movement he helped to organize? The debt of Eugene O'Neil and Arthur Miller to Marx is clear and obvious, even if their positions in society and capitalist censorship forced them to be circumspect in their conclusions.

It is a mistake to not recognize the influence of Marxist ideas in other fields because they do not follow the exact same format or structure as Marx did. Marx was also a product of his time. We have to see Wittgenstein the same way.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay


So this shows that he actually didn't support Stalinism. Good for him. What does that say about his grasp of political situations? Hadn't he noticed the nature of the Stalinist regime before going there? What were his particular dellusions about the regime? Did he ever believe it had anything to do with the working class? (Other people failed, or even refused, to see what Stalinism was, out of a misguided loyalty to the very Revolution that Stalinism betrayed - but how would that be the case for a thinker who, as far as I am informed, never spent two seconds of his time wondering about the Russian Revolution?)

No, he wasn't anti-gay marriage; he doesn't seem to have been pro-gay marriage either. This was not what he was thinking about; his subject was different, and he cared little for whatever was not his subject - at least at at a theoretical level.

His philosophy isn't anti-Marxist in the sence that he didn't purposefully set out to find a theoretical refutation of Marxism (like Weber or Böhm-Bawerk, for instance, did). I am not sure at all that its foundations aren't mutually exclusive regarding the foundations of Marxism. At best, his views are taken from a different point, implying a wholly different perspective.

"Anti-metaphysical" means different things for different people, and I am far from sure that his peculiar way of being "anti-metaphysical" shouldn't be considered "metaphysical" itself from a Marxist point of view (and, conversely, that he wouldn't dismiss Marxism as a form of "metaphysics" if he ever deigned to pay any attention to Marxism).

And I think the part on "understood that language only had meaning within an historical-human context" is simply false. He lacked any sence of History; doesn't seem to have been interested in History at all; his method in Philosophical Investigations manifestly fails to take History in account, everything being phrased and considered as if language magically emerged ex-nihilo a second ago. He doesn't even seem to take into consideration the differences and contrasts between different modern languages - he talks about "looking at how words are used" but doesn't seem to notice the contrasts between the way they are used, for instance, in German and English, two languages he was fluent in.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I haven't read "Philosophical Investigations" in quite a while, ten years, and only remember Wittgenstein emphasizing the functionality of language and his comparison of it to a game with rules. It seems to me to be an important and even progressive concept, fully compatible with the idea that the workingclass can change the rules of capitalism at any moment through a worldwide revolution.

It looks to me much more like an investigation into linguistics; its merits and demerits seem much more linked with that than with politics.


I am often amazed by how influenced the great minds of the early 20th century were by Marx. They are sometimes incorrectly classed as bourgeois and their ideas dismissed as bourgeois, but if one examines them carefully, one finds they have developed many ideas that Marx briefly noted in his studies.

I think even the openly bourgeois thinkers were more influenced by Marx than they would like to think. But to be influenced by Marx (Max Weber, for instance, certainly was) is one thing; to contribute to the theoretical advancement of a socialist revolution is quite different.

Now, don't take me wrong. There are things that are non-political, and are important. One could like Wagner's music while despising his politics. We should not feel the necessity to refuse his music because of his politics, nor of fantasising that he had better politics to justify our listening of his work. The same stands for scientists. Einstein was a wishy-washy socialdemocratic petty-bourgeois; it doesn't mean that his physics wasn't decisive for the advancement of our understandment of the universe. Conversely, his physics was decisive for the advancement of our understandment of the universe; it doesn't mean that he was a revolutionary.


For example, reading Sylvia Plath's "A Room of One's Own," one is astonished to find this feminist writer expounding a clearly materialist philosophy that women's oppression historically has an economic base.

I haven't read her, but I wouldn't find astonishing that a feminist would support such views.


Sigmund Freud's amazing analysis of symbol transformation in dreams can be seen as borrowing from Marx's analysis of the transformation of commodities in Das Kapital.

I think this is a forced interpretation. Thinkers of every tendency have long written about transformations. Joule or Sadi Carnot weren't influenced by Marx in their work about termodinamics, Darwin was not influenced by Marx in his work about evolution, etc. And I would say that Freud wasn't influenced by Marx in his analysis of dreams; he comes from other other path, and the compatibility or incompatibility, complementarity or contradiction, etc, between his views and Marx's will be discussed perhaps for centuries. Why should we fantasise a faux biography of Freud, in which he would be a militant leftist, and why would we grasp at straws to make that point ("gee, he was Jewish, so he must have voted for the left, and if he voted for the left, he was a leftist militant")? Why can't we accept that people who aren't political revolutionaries - who are centrists, apolitical, even outright reactionaries - can be great at other dimensions of human achievement?


Could any of D.H. Lawrence's or James Joyce's great novels exploring the lives and thoughts of working class people have been written without the influence of Marx and the workingclass socialist movement he helped to organize? The debt of Eugene O'Neil and Arthur Miller to Marx is clear and obvious, even if their positions in society and capitalist censorship forced them to be circumspect in their conclusions.

I wouldn't know if this is true or not. I would note, however, that Charles Dickens wrote impressive novels about the lives and thoughts of individuals of the working class, and it is difficult to read the Das Kapital, part one, without hearing echoes of Oliver Twist, and I am far from sure that there is more between Dickens and Marx than the fact that they lived roughly at the same time and place, and saw similar things and events. But this is a different issue; the working class itself, through its mere presence, and even more by its struggles, its mores, its sufferings and disasters, cannot have failed to impress writers and thinkers, even those who never read, or understood, or sympathised, with Marx and Marxism.


It is a mistake to not recognize the influence of Marxist ideas in other fields because they do not follow the exact same format or structure as Marx did. Marx was also a product of his time. We have to see Wittgenstein the same way.

It is also a mistake to fantasise the influence of Marx on whatever we appreciate.

And I think our appreciation of Wittgenstein should stand on a proper reading of what he says. Projecting our own ideas into his writings doesn't do any good for us, or for him, or - if that's what we happen to be projecting into Wittgenstein - to Marxist thinking.

Now, I can't claim to have a proper understanding of Wittgenstein's work; I am at the moment struggling with the Philosophic Investigations (and wondering how can people get so passionate about that kind of stuff). But what has been systematically presented to us as his thought has not bought any sympathy from my part - it is just a new fad of intellectual sectarianism and snobbery, of the same gender, though obviously not of the same species, that has long plagued the left (indeed, a particularly nasty and extreme species of such dogmatism, even compared to the abyssal standards of the left). The best I can say in Wittgenstein's behalf, regarding this, is that he is apparently innocent of such developments (and, indeed, that some things he writes in PhI seem to directly contradict some of the posturing here); the worse I can imagine is that his own presumption and arrogance may have added with those of the left to ignite Ms. Lichtenstein's own school of sectarian and dogmatic sophistry.

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

And I would say that Freud wasn't influenced by Marx in his analysis of dreams; he comes from other other path, and the compatibility or incompatibility, complementarity or contradiction, etc, between his views and Marx's will be discussed perhaps for centuries. Why should we fantasise a faux biography of Freud,

And I would say why don't you, ummm, read a fucking book or two instead of pulling this crap out of your ass?

[Luís Henrique]

And I would say why don't you, ummm, read a fucking book or two instead of pulling this crap out of your ass?

I have read most of Freud, thanks. Why are you so intent in falsifying history?

Luís Henrique

[JimFar]

I think that a lot of Wittgenstein's attraction to communism came out of his Tolstoyism. But Wittgenstein at Cambridge was close to a number of Marxist or Marxisant academics there, including Pierro Sraffa, Christopher Hill, and Maurice Dobb, to name just a few. So I think it unlikely that he was completely clueless concerning Marxism.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I have read most of Freud, thanks. Luís Henrique
All right, smartass.

- Name those books and articles where Freud discusses Marxism, explicitly or implicitly.

- Name the followers of Freud who were Marxists or Socialists; in which parts of Freud's correspondence is Freud's relationship with them discussed?

- Name and describe the correspondence between Freud and his openly Marxist followers.

Name major secondary literature in which Freud's politics is discussed.

I'll be checking back in a few minutes. Everybody deserves a chance to prove he's not a pathological liar.

[Luís Henrique]

All right, smartass.

- Name those books and articles where Freud discusses Marxism, explicitly or implicitly.

None that I am aware of. In Totem und Taboo and in Civilisation and its Discontents, he advances hypotheses about society that are incompatible with Marx and Engels ideas, as expressed in the Grundrisse and in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.


- Name the followers of Freud who were Marxists or Socialists; in which parts of Freud's correspondence is Freud's relationship with them discussed?Reich, Fromm, Marcuse. I don't know whether they discussed such subjects in correspondence. I have read Freud's published books, not his correspondence.


- Name and describe the correspondence between Freud and his openly Marxist followers.What?


Name major secondary literature in which Freud's politics is discussed.Oh good grief. There is plenty, I don't remember any on the top of my head. Freud's politics was never a secret. He voted for centrist parties, and avoided getting involved in politics any further than that. Do you have any evidence of it being otherwise?


I'll be checking back in a few minutes. Everybody deserves a chance to prove he's not a pathological liar.Listen, you have made the rather weird point that Wittgenstein and Freud were socialist activists, which is widely known to be false. You have never brought any evidence to back up those absurd claims, except for the even more absurd idea that, being both Jewish, they must have voted for the left - which is a) utterly illogical, b) a mere undemonstrated hypothesis in the case of Wittgenstein, and manifestly false in the case of Freud, and c) completely different from an actual involvement with leftist politics. And I am the pathological liar?

Do I smell here the Freudian mechanism of projection?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think that a lot of Wittgenstein's attraction to communism came out of his Tolstoyism. But Wittgenstein at Cambridge was close to a number of Marxist or Marxisant academics there, including Pierro Sraffa, Christopher Hill, and Maurice Dobb, to name just a few. So I think it unlikely that he was completely clueless concerning Marxism.

Mkay. Pick your PhI and open it at paragraphs 193-194, where he discusses the functioning of machines, or rather what we mean by "functioning of machines". Does that sound like it was written by someone with any knowledge of Marx's work? Namely, where does it sound as written by someone acquainted to Marx's discussion of the finalistic nature of human activity?

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

None that I am aware of.FAIL.

In Totem und Taboo and in Civilisation and its Discontents, he advances hypotheses about society that are incompatible with Marx and Engels ideas, as expressed in the Grundrisse and in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.FAIL.


Reich, Fromm, Marcuse. Three (or rather, two) out of twenty plus members of the IPA? FAIL.

I don't know whether they discussed such subjects in correspondence.FAIL.

I have read Freud's published books, not his correspondence.FAIL.

Oh good grief. There is plenty, I don't remember any on the top of my head. FAIL.

He avoided getting involved in politics any further than that.FAIL (see 1927 letter of support for the Socialists).

pkYNBwCEeH4

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Sure, not everything in life is the struggle for socialism. Which also means that we can perfectly like and understand things like Einstein's physics, Brahms' music, or Wittgenstein's philosophy, without the need of fantasising the supposed involvement of Einstein, Brahms, or Wittgenstein with leftist politics.

Luís Henrique

I have to say i think have some suspcion that your comments on this thread are in part motivated by your wish to express your dislike of wittgensteins philospohy on the sly.

Likewise I think it is mistaken of you to make points like this, since it is clear to anyone who has an aquantiance with wittgenstein knows it is far less removed from the struggle for socialism, espcailly given that most socialist parties believe in dialectical materialism than einstein's physics are. thoughout all of this i get the sense you, as a supporter of diamat, are trying to make out wittgenstein has fuck all to do with socialism so you can dismiss any attempts to use his work to critise your own philospoy and its impact on socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

I have to say i think have some suspcion that your comments on this thread are in part motivated by your wish to express your dislike of wittgensteins philospohy on the sly.

Likewise I think it is mistaken of you to make points like this, since it is clear to anyone who has an aquantiance with wittgenstein knows it is far less removed from the struggle for socialism, espcailly given that most socialist parties believe in dialectical materialism than einstein's physics are. thoughout all of this i get the sense you, as a supporter of diamat, are trying to make out wittgenstein has fuck all to do with socialism so you can dismiss any attempts to use his work to critise your own philospoy and its impact on socialism.

Oh, so now I am a supporter of the Stalinist imbecility called "diamat"? From where do you take such absurd?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

FAIL.

OK - your turn: What are the articles by Freud where he implicitly or explicitly discusses Marxism?


FAIL. So enlighten us: what does Freud discuss in Totem und Tabu and/or in Civilisation and its Discontents, and how does it relate to Marxism, socialism, or class struggle?


Three (or rather, two) out of twenty plus members of the IPA? FAIL.Well, those are the thinkers whose work had an actual impact. Who are the others, and what is their importance for either Marxism or psychoanalisis?


FAIL.So, what did Freud discuss concerning socialism, Marxism, or class struggle with his openly Marxist followers?


FAIL.Never claimed to have read all of Freud. I said, most of it. And so it is: Civilisation and its Discontents, The Interpretation of Dreams, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, The Ego and the Id, Psychopathology of Cotidian Life, Totem und Tabu, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, Hysteria, The Future of Religions, Psychology of Erotic Life, etc.


FAIL.And so, what does the major secondary literature tell us about Freud's politics?

FAIL (see 1927 letter of support for the Socialists).

Ah, so in 1927 he supported the Socialist Socialdemocratic Party. Maybe. How does this make him a socialist activist? In times of despair, with his prefered centrist parties going bankrupt and electorally inviable, he supported the socialdemocrats (not the "socialists") against a worse evil - the extreme right represented by the fascist-leaning Christian Social Party and the National Socialists. Sorry, but that doesn't make anyone a socialist, or even a socialdemocrat.


pkYNBwCEeH4The insult is gratuitous, please reconsider.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Likewise I think it is mistaken of you to make points like this, since it is clear to anyone who has an aquantiance with wittgenstein knows it is far less removed from the struggle for socialism, espcailly given that most socialist parties believe in dialectical materialism than einstein's physics are.

Well, on what do you base your assertion that "it is clear to anyone who has an aquantiance with wittgenstein knows it is far less removed from the struggle for socialism"? What facts do you have to back such idea? What did Wittgenstein actually do for the cause of socialism? Where he did even utter the word? When did he demonstrate having any notion of what class struggle is?


thoughout all of this i get the sense you, as a supporter of diamat, are trying to make out wittgenstein has fuck all to do with socialism so you can dismiss any attempts to use his work to critise your own philospoy and its impact on socialism.

You people have a bad habit of trying to read my mind. Where have I voiced support for "Diamat"? What is "my own philosophy"? Please, if you don't have anything reasonable to say, why don't you "pass in silence"?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

most socialist parties believe in dialectical materialism than einstein's physics

And by the way, what is the evidence that Wittgenstein ever engaged in criticism of dialectical materialism, or of its Stalinist caricature?

Luís Henrique

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Sorry, I used the word "diamat" instead of dialetical materialism. I apologise, it wasn't intended to be a "slander" as you say, but just a mistake. You do believe in dialetical materialism, at least though, whatever you feel about the "stalinist cariature" (diamat.)

I think you misssed the point of what i was saying before though. I never said wittgenstein was personally involved in much to do with socialism at all, and the best people can come up with is anacodatal or passing comments at best. What I said was that since wittgenstein's work clearly is relavant to the philospohies commonly held by socialists, like yourself, which influence their actions as socialists, he is not "irrelavant." just because he himself personally has only made passing comments about socialism at all. Surely you can see this is different to einsteins work?

[Luís Henrique]

Sorry, I used the word "diamat" instead of dialetical materialism. I apologise, it wasn't intended to be a "slander" as you say, but just a mistake. You do believe in dialetical materialism, at least though, whatever you feel about the "stalinist cariature" (diamat.)

I don't remember using the word "slander" in this context. I of course accept your apologies, but if you made a mistake here, it was a gross mistake. Who has ever decreed that "diamat" is either materialist or dialectical (it is neither, if you ask me)? Stalin? Ms. Lichtenstein?

I don't think dialectical materialism is something to be "believed"; it is a method, we either use it or not. Of course, I am a Marxist, so I use it; I wonder how one can be a Marxist without using it, and what method should a Marxist use, if not dialectical materialism.


I think you misssed the point of what i was saying before though. I never said wittgenstein was personally involved in much to do with socialism at all, and the best people can come up with is anacodatal or passing comments at best.Yes, that is what is true; apparently it is not what is believed by some people here.


What I said was that since wittgenstein's work clearly is relavant to the philospohies commonly held by socialists, like yourself, which influence their actions as socialists, he is not "irrelavant."But is it relevant? As far as I know, he never uttered any criticism, be it of Marxism, or of Stalinist "diamat". Indeed, people intend to prove that he was sympathetic to the left because he once planned to live in the Soviet Union - but, by such line of reasoning, this would "prove" he was "sympathetic" to "diamat" - which was the "official" "philosophy" in that place and time.

What can be said is that his work implies such criticism. But his work is so convoluted and enigmatic, that practically anything can be thought as "implied" in it, from militant atheism to mystical, if unorthodox, theism. Apparently it is impossible to interpret Wittgenstein without misinterpreting him. So what are the implications to socialism or to dialectical materialism, if any? Maybe there are some - and - gasp - maybe there are none; what I can say for sure is, I don't take Ms. Lichtenstein very peculiar, very idiossincratic, and very biased, interpretation of Wittgenstein for granted. And, not taking it for granted, I don't think that Wittgenstein's method is necessarily opposed to Marx's method (a.k.a. "dialectical materialism"). Some much better arguments than Ms. Lichtenstein's sophisms would be needed to take me to that conclusion.


just because he himself personally has only made passing comments about socialism at all. Surely you can see this is different to einsteins work?No, I don't see how this is different from Einstein's work from such point of view. It is of course different in that Einstein's work was science, not philosophy, and was solidly rooted in the scientific tradition of his time. He obviously knew his Newton very well; if Wittgenstein knew his Saussure, he certainly didn't make a point of making it clear in his work.

Now, let's place the burden of proof where it belongs. Where did Wittgenstein criticise "dialectics", or Marx's method, or "diamat", or Lenin's "Empiriocriticism", etc.? What does he say that can be actually taken as contrary to any of those things? I am tired of "arguments" like "Lenin had to think about motion without matter in order to say it was unthinkable" - it is sheer sophistry, and anti-Wittgensteinian sophistry for what is worth, because anyone actually looking at how words are used can see that this is not how we use the word "unthinkable".

So, no, the reason I am commenting on Wittgenstein and his "ordinary language philosophy" is not what you think it is:


i get the sense you, as a supporter of diamat, are trying to make out wittgenstein has fuck all to do with socialism so you can dismiss any attempts to use his work to critise your own philospoy and its impact on socialism.Let's get real. The guy had fuck all to do with socialism (of course, someone else might try and build bridges between his thought and socialism, but that would be this someone else's work, not Wittgenstein's). And any attempts to use his work to criticise "my philosophy" - or whatever other philosophy, fwiw - should at least be actually based in his work, which "anti-dialectics" is not.

Now, my "philosophy" - if a "philosophy" it is - is Marxism, and I would defend its "impact" on socialism. Wouldn't you?

Luís Henrique