Colin McGinn on Wittgenstein's ontology

Colin McGinn, a contemporary philosopher of some importance, (google "new mysterians") often discusses the history of the discipline in his blog. I'm fascinated by his recent comment on "Wittgenstein's Ontology," which you can find by clicking here. Wittgenstein’s Ontology - Colin McGinn

Let us start our consideration of it with a simple question: what is ontology? By standard definition, it is the study of being, discussing for example what types of thing constitute the furniture of the universe. Sample questions: Are numbers real? Are only the numbers we call "real numbers" real or are "imaginary" numbers also real? This is distinct from questions about cosmology or the mind-body problem, which are puzzles ABOUT certain of the pieces of furniture in the universe. These inquiries all fit under the broader framework of metaphysics.

Anyway, McGinn's first point is that Wittgenstein sets out his own ontology clearly in the opening words of his TRACTATUS. The world is everything that is the case. So what "is the case" is the furniture. What is the case is not an object, but a fact.

The TRACTATUS appeared in 1922, just a little over one century ago. It is often contrasted with a later text of his, PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS, left in manuscript form at his death in 1951. The two writings are said to reflect "early" and "later" Wittgenstein, with the former fitting well into the analytic/positivist tradition, and the latter (at a minimum) pressing against that envelope.

McGinn doesn't gainsay that assessment. But he does make the point that Wittgenstein need not have changed his ontology in order to write INVESTIGATIONS.

"No reader could hazard a guess as to Wittgenstein's ontology" looking at the INVESTIGATIONS alone. "Certainly, no consequences for meaning are derived from a presumed ontology."

So what CAN we say about what did and did not change in LW's thought? That is a big question....

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog