While looking for something else, I came across a dissertation by David M. Finkelstein titled "Wittgensteinian Quietism" (2006, University of Pittsburgh; directed by McDowell). [Update: apparently, David Finkelstein is not identical to David Finkelstein; see the comments for further explanation.] Here's the abstract:
One can't help but be struck by the range of incompatible positions that Wittgenstein's philosophy, his rule-following considerations in particular, have been taken to support. For instance, according to one very popular interpretation of the rule-following considerations, Wittgenstein proves that claims about the meanings of words aren't objectively true. On another interpretation, Wittgenstein shows that discourse about meaning, though without foundation, is as capable of robust truth as any. Still others argue that the Wittgenstein of the Investigations was neither a realist nor an antirealist with respect to discourse about meaning. On the contrary, according to proponents of this last interpretation, Wittgenstein rejected as "nonsense" both the questions that the rule-following considerations seem to pose and the answers that realists and antirealists have tried to give to these questions.
This third, quietist interpretation of Wittgenstein has received increased critical attention of late. Some commentators have suggested that there is no textual basis for the quietist interpretation of the early Wittgenstein. Less has been written that purports to assess the arguments that quietists have found in Wittgenstein, early or late.
In this dissertation, I assess the philosophical credentials of the quietist interpretation of Wittgenstein. In the first part, I argue that the material from Frege that inspired the Tractatus doesn’t support quietism in the way that proponents of the quietist interpretation of Wittgenstein suppose. In the second part, I argue that the rule-following considerations support a position that's closely related to, but in important respects different from the one that the proponents of the quietist interpretation of Wittgenstein endorse.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- N. N.
- I am a doctoral student in philosophy writing a dissertation on Wittgenstein.
9 comments:
Wow, cool. His article in Crary and Read is about this, but I didn't know his diss was too. I wouldn't have thought to look specifically to the RFC for support for "quietism," though I do suppose my own reading (i.e. of those sections) would fit into that broad category as described here (or maybe it's the second category, depending on what "robust truth" means ... ). I'll add this to the virtual pile of that which is to be read.
FYI: there are two different David Finkelsteins. This dissertation is by David M. Finkelstein, who just finished his degree at Pitt. The one currently working at the University of Chicago (my present undergraduate home) is David H. Finkelstein-- he also got his phd at Pitt, but in the mid '90s. See page viii of the dissertation for more information about this: David H. was David M.'s undergrad advisor at Indiana, and is listed on the dissertation as one of the readers. It is quite odd that two so-similarly-named people fell into working together; it makes for much amusing confusion among fans of both Davids.
Thanks, Jon. That is odd and confusing. What an unlikely coincidence that two David Finkelstein's would both be at Indiana and Pittsburgh, and both work on Wittgenstein.
Odd and confusing, you say? Why, it's frightening and disturbing – a warp in the space-time continuum, an outrage against common sense and decency. Good to know, though; thanks for pointing it out.
What kind of loon chooses to use the Blue Book for citations in an obviously extralegal context?
Among other things all those ALL CAPS ARE REALLY DISTRACTING AND UGLY.
Ben,
Your mention of the "Blue Book" threw me for a loop. After all, it's perfectly normal for a dissertation on Wittgenstein to cite the Blue Book. And, what does the Blue Book have to do with legal context or capital letters, anyway?
So I started glancing at Finkelstein's dissertation for some clue, and noticed the second footnote: "A NOTE ON CITATIONS: in what follows, I will cite to texts in the conventional, legal manner. See THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (18th Ed. 2005)."
Had I been thinking, I would have been clearer—but reading that footnote sent me into such a rage!
The comma in the phrase "the conventional, legal manner" is highly deceptive.
Old post, I know, but I just noticed something even more interesting:
The graduate student placement page for Pitt has David M. Finkelstein as tenure track at Chicago. Even Pitt can't tell 'em apart!
Evidence:
http://www.pitt.edu/%7Ephilosop/graduate/placement.html
Perhaps subscript numerals are in order.
I was sad to see your blog come to an end, but I can sympathize with the desire for anonymity.
Post a Comment