Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press, Royal Institute of Philosophy are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
are Dead
E. F. THOMPKINS
years.
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
217
E. F. Thompkins
Ding is however a conventional mundane object whereas Wittgensteinian Gegenstande are supposed to be transcendental entities which
have no material properties. All states of affairs are contingent; the
world is whatever it happens to be (T 1). If it is not to disintegrate there
must be something beyond what is the case capable of underpinning
reality. This is the substance, the form, of the world which consists of
stinde) such as tables, chairs and books (T 3.1431). He does distinguish the objects as 'rdumlich' but the use of 'Gegenstand' is
confusing. It adds to the confusion to describe objects at least potentially visible as colourless (T 2.0232). Yet colour itself, along with space
and time, are forms of object (T 2.0251); two shades of blue are
separate objects.
An object is autonomous in that it can play a part in any possible state
of affairs but this autonomy gives it no more than the possibility of
existence. In order to exist it must have external properties-the prop-
erties which that object alone possesses-and the simple object cannot
have external properties because it has no body on which to hang them
something and somewhere but what its properties specifically are does
not become manifest until it concatenates with at least one other object.
Then the properties with which each object is now endowed can be
perceived and described.
possessing it might not possess it (T 4.123). For example it is unthinkable that two shades of blue which relate to each other as lighter and
darker should not do so.
218
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
stand' (T 4.123). The commonly held view is that examples of Wittgensteinian objects cannot be produced; that ordinary objects are
complexes which must be reduced to simple objects before they can be
named. This approach leads inevitably to questions of what the physical world ultimately consists of; to the demise of philosophy and the
absorption of the corpse into science. Any stopping place along this
road depends on what Wittgenstein expressly proscribes-the arbitrary
determination of reality by means of language:
If the world had no substance, whether a sentence had sense would
properties of an object can exist without the other. The two uses of
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
and pieces misses the point. Chair is simple as chair; there are no
simpler chairnesses into which it might be divided.
Bewitched by the perceived necessity of unitary simples, Wittgenstein never does come to realize the implications for Gegenstand of his
insistence on the duality of internal and external properties. He comes
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
reality on its head; the process is more plausible viewed in reverseobjects shedding their spatio-temporal individuality on the way to
generic categorization.
A Wittgensteinian object has a certain affinity with a universal
viewed not as a property of objects but as a neurophysiological operation within the brain of the perceiver. In the dark all cats are grey. A
rose is red only to the beholder; rose as Platonic Form or Wittgensteinian object or what Russell calls a'physical object in physical space'2
is bound to be colourless since it is not visible. Repeated red roses plus
red other-objects, though they may vary as to the intensity and the
wavelength of the light they reflect, stimulate the brain via the optic
'same' and not 'identical'. I do not carry a colour chart in my mind with
which to identify by comparison each specimen of red which comes my
themselves.3
15.
3 F. Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), 89.
221
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
The word has caused his translators a great deal of difficulty. Dictionaries suggest 'circumstance(s)', 'state of affairs', 'facts of the case',
'state of the case'. Ogden translates, after Russell, as 'atomic fact'; Pears
and McGuiness as 'state of affairs'. The latter is the more accurate but it
translating the first by 'atomic fact' and the second by 'fact'. De Laguna
points out that this is by no means the whole difference between them:
figuration of objects and the simplest bit of reality that can exist.
Circumstances (Sachverhalte) then go to make up a state of affairs
4 T. de Laguna, 'Review of Tractatus', in I. M. Copi and R. W. Beard,
Essays on Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus' (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1966), 26.
5 R.-A. Dietrich, Sprache und Wirklichkeit in Wittgensteins 'Tractatus'
(Tiibingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1973), 20.
222
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
(T 2.04).
Tractatus and Wittgenstein loses no time in developing several incompatible views of it:
The world is whatever it happens to be (T 1); the fact is that it is the
totality of existent circumstances (T 2; 2.04) and by extension therefore the totality of the objects which form the circumstances (T 2.01).
But the world is the totality of facts not things (T 1.1); it is however
nonsense to speak of the totality of facts because 'fact' signifies a formal
concept (T 4.1272). Nevertheless the totality of facts determines what
is and what is not the case (T 1.12). Any fact might or might not be the
describe (T 4.016).
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
how it is that
... after all, Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what
cannot be said ...6
Wittgenstein is hoist with his own petard:
In ordinary language it happens with uncommon frequency that the
same word signifies in various ways-therefore belongs to different
symbols ... Thus there easily arise the most fundamental confusions
concept 'fact'; any individual fact which establishes the concept and
belongs to language; a circumstance or state of affairs which ostensibly
belongs to reality. For example he follows Frege in insisting that fact as
The world of the fortunate man is a different world from that of the
unfortunate (T 6.43).
Accordingly there are two sorts of reality as far as the Tractatus is
concerned: my world which is co-extensive with my language and
consists of those circumstances that I am capable of depicting in
language; the total possible world which consists of the totality of
circumstances. Wittgenstein calls the first 'Realitit' and the second
'Wirklichkeit'. The difference between the two is lost both in Ogden
1980), 42-43.
224
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
might imply that I add new elements of Wirklichkeit to the world or that
I extend my grasp of existing Wirklichkeit. There is no reason why these
should be mutually exclusive and to do one could be to do the other also
since new experience on my part might be of some new element that I
have added to Wirklichkeit.
The possibility arises that his confusing the two sorts of reality rather
than reality and fact is the reason for Wittgenstein's use of one sign to
signify more than one symbol. But this will not do because the confusion arises within his account of Wirklichkeit. Plochmann and Law-
son propose 'prime fact' for Sachverhalt and 'derivative fact' for
Tatsache with 'Fact1' and 'Fact2' as alternatives. They accept that
Wittgenstein says that Tatsachen are composed of Sachverhalte but see
the relationship as functional rather than that of whole and parts.8 But
this will not solve the problem because Wittgenstein ascribes incom-
one hand and Tatsache in its relation to Sachverhalt on the other would
remain to plague the interpretation. There is no doubt that Wittgenstein sees fact as reality and adopts in doing so an untenable position. A
fact is a linguistic phenomenon; a statement of what is the case. It is not
greatly in clarity if all reference to fact is excised from it. Reality is then
not forthcoming for his inclusion of any stage between objects and
reality. All language is metaphor since the symbol is never what it
symbolizes.
The idea that we could prise the world off our concepts is incoherent;
for with what conception of the world should we then be left?10
8 G. K. Plochmann and J. B. Lawson, Terms in theirPropositional Contexts
in Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus' (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1962), 37-39, 131-132.
9 P. F. Strawson, 'Truth', in Proceedings oftheAristotelian Society (Supple-
225
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
There is no problem with prising our concepts off the world. Language
world must be through language-but this is what Wittgenstein proposes to do in the Tractatus. If he had stuck to circumstance as fact and
reality. Language can never get any closer to reality than that. To
the word.11
itself. This takes place when ordinary sentences have been analysed
into the elementary sentences of which he takes them to be truth
functions, an elementary sentence being the linguistic counterpart of a
only with symbols that denote non-complex objects.13 But neither 'fork'
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
nor 'knife' can be analysed into simpler symbols and still perform its
function of identifying an object. Neither Kenny nor Pears takes the
point that at an early stage of his proposed analysis all contact is lost
with the ostensible subject of the discourse. It was on such grounds that
Stebbing took the physicists to task for their improper use of ordinary
not advocate such a procedure for our everyday sentences; they are
assumes that his own statements in the Tractatus are capable as they
stand of conveying his meaning and of being seen for the nonsense that
anchor.
52.
227
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
and do not require the support of circumstances-even in the Tractatus sentences that depict non-existent circumstances have sense. As
Wittgenstein later comes to realize, world and language are not directly
necessary one to the other. From the very beginning of Philosophische
Untersuchungen he seeks to distance himself from the view that language is based on words meaning things. He now considers this to be a
however, in spite of his implying that it is, the view of language that he
(T 4.002).
already adopted which did not imply a determinate form for every
specimen of a given object:
If I am shown various leaves and told 'That's called "leaf"', I acquire
a concept of leaf-form, a picture of it in my mind. But what then does
the picture of a leaf look like that shows no determinate form but 'that
always symbol plus symbolized. In terms of Philosophische Untersuchungen this is a language-game and occasions on which the language-game is played. The 'leaf' language-game has the backing, actual
or potential, of the object leaf; its rule is the possibility of reference to
228
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
leaf.
named though it cannot exist in isolation. Its name can then be used
together with the names of other objects in an endless variety of
might be made with the tools. His box of tools has not changed-it is
still everyday language in all its complexity-but he is now interested in
how the tools work whereas he used to be interested in how they were
made. He was not and is still not interested in what can be made with
them.
of vocabulary would depict whatever was the case in the world (PU
114); such a device would do no more than retrace a pattern imposed on
nature. But he produced no language-picture of nature in the Tractatus
and imposed no language-pattern on the world. The difference is that
the nexus between language and nature was determinate in theory but
non-existent in practice; it is now indeterminate in theory and non-
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
would look like (T 3.031). In any case Realitit is empirical and all we
know of Wirklichkeit is what our senses tell us directly or indirectly. So
all we can talk about is matters of science and we must keep quiet about
the rest. The later Wittgenstein agrees but decides that empirical
matters are of no interest to him (PU 109); he accepts the commonsense
view of the world but rejects it as a matter of philosophical concern. It is
how we talk about objects and their relations that interests him. But it
was so in the Tractatus:
proper name. The sentence 'Nothung has a sharp edge' makes sense
However, the example that he puts into the mouth of the imaginary
proponent of logically proper names fails to make Wittgenstein's point
because it would not make the other's either. Nothung never existed
and could not therefore cease to exist. Any problem with the name is
inherent in the naming and does not arise from the destruction of the
object named. Even accepting for the sake of argument the sufficient
reality of the sword does not rescue the point because 'Nothung' lacks
the necessary uniqueness of reference. 'Nothung' is the name invented
by Wagner for two swords which figure in Der Ring des Nibelungen:
makes sense. Even in the Tractatus sense does not depend on reference
but only on the logical possibility of reference. 'Nothung has a sharp
edge' describes a thinkable state of affairs and therefore makes sense;
the question of its referential truth does not arise. In short, sense
230
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
attaches to symbol; but that is to say no more than that there is symbol.
There cannot be two separate things, symbol and the sense of the
symbol:
nonsense.
man. The second meaning took on a life of its own with the potential for
waxing and waning as Wittgenstein's works waxed or waned in public
esteem.
clusion that it makes no sense to talk absolutely about the simple parts
of a chair for example. The reason for this is that 'simple' means 'not
composite' and it is the composite that causes the problem as much as
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
elementary sentences simple signs are needed. Grant that the generic
names of mundane objects are unanalysable simples and Wittgenstein's
later position is established. The conceptualizing power of language, of
ordinary everyday language stripped of metaphysical gloss, creates our
wrong in either case with the mechanics of the language. Every sentence of our colloquial language is 'logically perfectly ordered (logisch
vollkommen geordnet)' (T 5.5563), is 'in order (in Ordnung)' (PU 98),
just as it is. As far as the meaning is concerned, in the first case it is
indeterminate and the complex sentence needs to be analysed into
elementary sentences before the meaning becomes clear; in the second
it is indeterminate and must remain so because indeterminacy of mean-
with it:
This is the stance that he in fact adopts in the Tractatus. He never does
pursue the crystal clarity that in PU 97 he accuses himself of having
232
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ical i.e. they are beyond the reach of language. What he has been saying
is nonsense but valuable as a ladder up which to climb to a clearer view
can be made and that consequently philosophical inquiry has shot its
bolt. Having solved all philosophical problems by denying their existence he is finished with philosophy.
But philosophy is not finished with him. The position that he reaches
at the end of the Tractatus is not the position that he claims he reached
looking back from Philosophische Untersuchungen but the one that he
takes up in his later work-commonsense objects of necessity configured in contingent circumstances but causing him no concern by
their lack of ultimate simplicity because that is how the world happens
to be; pointless to wish it were otherwise. The objects have names and
the circumstances are described in the commonplace vague sentences of
(PU II xii).
Reality is what it is, as it was in the Tractatus, and can be left to the
ostensibly drawn their support, claiming that it has in fact been generating them. Without the concepts of circumstance and object that he
develops in spite of himself in the Tractatus he could not have done it.
In Philosophische Untersuchungen he needs a reality ordinary and safe
enough to turn his back on as he looks to an autonomous language. So
233
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E. F. Thompkins
to make the difference appear greater than it is, the later takes up
smoothly where the earlier leaves off. At its widest the difference
between the two is that of two viewpoints not two views. In the
Tractatus Wittgenstein purports to stand outside language and look in;
in Philosophische Untersuchungen he stands inside language and looks
around. The result is variant perspectives on the same object-but not
so variant after all since in neither case can he do more than use
234
This content downloaded from 155.223.64.100 on Sat, 21 May 2016 19:51:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms