Q&A: Wittgenstein's Prison
Wittgenstein's Prison
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Wittgenstein, in his later philosophy, argues that everything we speak and think is only within the framework of a language game, and that we cannot step outside the conceptual framework of that game. Because of this, we cannot speak about the world itself, but only about how it is perceived through the framework of language games (similar to Kant). I also understood that he says the concept of the "self" does not exist (Descartes' self).
What do you think—do you agree or not?
If so, why? And if not, then why not?
Answer
This is not the place to write an essay on Wittgenstein. In general, I do not agree. He decided that everything is a language game because, in his view, we have no clear definition and justification beyond language. But from my perspective there is no need for justification and a clear definition. Those are leftovers from his early positivism. For example, his claim about following a rule. What he shows is that we have no way to understand a rule except through examples. But after we have seen the examples, we really do understand the rule. And that is not a game but an understanding of something real.
Discussion on Answer
I don't recall.
It is important to emphasize that there is a significant difference between Kant and Wittgenstein: Kant argues that we cannot speak about the world as it is in itself, but we can speak about the world of phenomena. Wittgenstein, by contrast, argues that even about the world of phenomena one cannot speak.
Many twentieth-century thinkers dismantled the Cartesian "self."
Is there somewhere that the Rabbi discusses this at greater length?