Q&A: Wittgenstein and Postmodernism
Wittgenstein and Postmodernism
Question
Hello. If I remember correctly, I saw that you treat Wittgenstein's thought very seriously, while on the other hand you reject postmodernism. I'm trying to understand how that is possible (unless I misunderstood your attitude toward the later Wittgenstein), since Wittgenstein's view regarding the limits of language is a cornerstone of postmodernism (even if postmodern thinkers were not committed to his words). After all, the linguistic turn and the understanding that we are all trapped within language and culture constitute the central basis of postmodernism, no? I would be glad to understand your view on this matter.
Best regards, Asaf Nashri
Answer
Postmodernism in itself says nothing except that everything is relative. Everything else is nonsense. In Wittgenstein there are quite a few meaningful ideas. If postmodernists choose to make use of those as well—good for them. In general, there are intelligent questions, and they remain such even if someone offers idiotic answers to them or relates to them in an idiotic way.
Discussion on Answer
Not exactly. There are problems in philosophy, chiefly the problem of certainty and of a solid foundation for arguments (the basic premises). To this, postmodernism offers the “answer” that there really is no truth and there are only narratives. In my opinion, that's nonsense. But sometimes people make use of philosophical arguments that do have value, such as arguments that show non-objective and undefined aspects of language, like those of Wittgenstein. The arguments may be correct, but the postmodern conclusions do not follow from them.
Isn't the distinction between Wittgenstein's doctrine and postmodernism a bit forced? After all, the Wittgensteinian “prison of language” obligates us to leap to “everything is relative,” since every statement is trapped within its own culture? Best regards,
The prison of language is a prison that does not allow speech, but it does not empty the thing itself of content. See the end of the early Wittgenstein ("Whereof one cannot speak…") and throughout the later one.
But beyond that, if you mean some specific idea of Wittgenstein's, then it has to be put on the table for discussion. You opened with Wittgenstein in general.
So to sum up your whole attitude toward postmodernism: can one say that you think it constitutes a mistaken answer to a serious problem in philosophy?