| The thoughts which I publish in what follows are the
precipitate of Philosophical Investigations, which has occupied me
for the last week. I have written down all these thoughts as remarks, short paragraphs, because I couldn’t be bothered to structure them coherently and sift out the wheat from the chaff. I made no attempt to weld my results together into a whole, because I realised that it would require too much concentrated thought ever to succeed. Thus this review is really only an anthology of half-formed thoughts of dubious value. It is impossible that it should fall to the lot of this work to bring light into any brain whatever. But I like the sound of my own writing. I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking. But, if possible, to make them give up the attempt in despair. I should have liked to produce a good review. This has not come about, but the time is past in which it seemed that I had any material to hand for that purpose. 1. Not saying what one means clearly. Because if one did it would be made manifest as trivial or false. I want to say – ‘All this would have been compressible into a small space!’ – But as you see it has sprawled. 2. The first impression of something complex is wrong, but it is interesting to record it for the final understanding is richer in its light. – Conceive this as a complete primitive misapprehension. Whatever you do don’t ask here – Is there something wrong with a book which misleads first time? 3. What is your aim in philosophy? – To raise a dust and then complain I cannot see. 4. Feigning depth by saying everything in riddles. Of course difficult thoughts cannot be laid out plain to a passing glance – but this is ridiculous! (A whole cloud of frustration condensed into a drop of invective.) 5. What is the virtue of producing a string of enigmatically formulated and totally unanswered questions? This spreads confusion not insight. Why always hint at what is to be said and never come out with it straight? Is it always more impressive when impossible to pin down? ((Playing around with syntax and punctuating with dashes. – As if one had seen the articulation of sentences with a new clarity – I want to say – what is wrong with normality of presentation?)) 6. The objectors (apocryphal) sometimes quoted are frequently forceful but often receive no direct answer. They are expected to stand condemned by their own absurdity. (A grammatical remark.) 7. Wrong reaction on first reading: later I will want to say ‘Ah now I see why it had to be expressed this way! Now I see that I was being reactionary, complaining about details. Yes, I am the very person who needed enlightening.’ But I immediately suspect this: for here I am having tried to write in disconnected bits, and how much easier it is! How sparing it is of thought and logical cohesion! How relaxing and impressive with small effort! What are the chances that this was the case for another who tried the same gambit? Or was he so deep that he could not find a surface? (Don’t regard a cynical assertion as an assertion of cynicism.) 8. I want to say – Yes you’re striving towards something important, possibly even very important. You might have got there. (This man understands, this one doesn’t: this is grasping, this failing to grasp.) But you haven’t shewn me the way there – so how can I believe there is anywhere to go? Your very inarticulateness – evidence against what you want to say being sayable. Why are you talking about philosophy so much? Now I ask: ‘Have you done any philosophy at all here?’ If you have – having understood you, how do we go on? You have discredited the process of building. You have compiled an album of excuses for not being able to move forward. 9. You give us the feeling that you are a specially precious and unique soul struggling – groping – towards truth under the threat of death. The artistic temperament where there is least excuse for it. 10. It is difficult, yes, but not because it ought to be. 11. Compare knowing and saying: what you want to say –‘The problems arising out of a misinterpretation of our forms of language have the character of depth.’ Out of your own mouth. 12. The question is not one of noting a language-game, but of explaining a language-game by means of our experiences. 13. ‘I do not want to settle this.’ Don’t bring it up then. 14. Imagine someone saying: ‘But I know how muddled I am!’ and writing a philosophy book to prove it. 15. There might actually occur a case where we should say ‘This man believes he is talking rubbish.’ |