Uncertainty as a Friend
There’s something I find in reading more “popular philosophy” that I often question: I find that a vast majority (from what I can tell) of writers do NOT speak to their personal biases in a straight-forward fashion. The two most major (and, perhaps presumptuous of me to say so: egregious) instances in my recent readings have been related to Wittgenstein, in both Ray Monk’s biography of Wittgenstein and (this is the more controversial one) in the afterward of Wittgenstein’s journals from the First World War (as translated and edited by Marjorie Perloff). In both cases, there appears to me a certain near-religious need to find redemption for a man who privately questioned his own morals with self-loathing.
Back to the writing.
First, in Ray Monk’s biography of Wittgenstein, there is a passage regarding the somewhat infamous “lectures” (read as: debates) with Wittgenstein and Alan Turing in the late 1930s. There is in mathematics, particularly once we hit computational and quantum studies, where certainty gives way to possibility. But that possibility is expansive, not reductive. Anyway, for our purposes, Turing and Wittgenstein never quite agreed and eventually Turing stopped attending the lectures altogether (despite Wittgenstein’s reported need to have Turing agree with him).
Far from me to disagree with people who have easier access to research on the men and this time period, my problem is really in Monks’ treatment of Turing’s argument. At one point, he calls Turing’s thinking as “a mathematician’s paradise”, as if math had never strived to prove anything. In this case, I am incredibly biased because I have a STEM background. I originally (in somewhat hilarious coincidence) studied engineering before, half persuaded by the reticence of a fellow undergrad who thought it painful ; and the other half, the overwhelming value I put on what is and is not spoken, I switched to English education with (eventually) a second major in Philosophy.
I’ve never really found the same experience somewhere else than my original alma mater, but that’s a segue for another time.
But as for the comment regarding mathematical logic, I have always felt it to be… not quite right. Granted, neither Perloff nor Monk have STEM backgrounds and therefore their understanding of mathematical logic is somewhat framed (I think) in how Wittgenstein framed it in those “lectures”, which in turn was reconstructed by the notes of other attendees. None of this is in Turing’s favor, particularly as we begin to understand what has been called a kind of psychological illness: Math-based Anxiety. The rigorous rigidity of arithmetic can prove daunting to people, especially as children are forced to learn sometimes beyond their age level and certainly on the basis of memorization rather than in application.
I’m not sure anyone in mathematics would agree with the idea of a “mathematician’s paradise” as a reasoning behind mathematical logic. As Wittgenstein’s truth tables can attest, there is an analogy to be made between higher level mathematics and language. A child’s understanding of language is formed slowly with time and development: simple sounds that lead to single-syllable words and, eventually, full sentences. Reading is its own kind of “proof”. An essay is an argument for or against some topic, but that too is often taught in a formulaic sense, particularly before graduate studies.
As controversial as this might seem: I do not necessarily see the difference between the formulation of language and the formulation of mathematical algorithms. Both are structured in a way to be understood by others and both have a certain “order of operations”, even when the languages in question are formed subject or object first. Those languages are often reflective of the culture it originates from. An increasingly global word has artists performing songs in different languages within a track. English is often interspersed in other languages, just as much as English borrows from most western languages, though more obviously with German in my humble opinion
As for Marjorie Perloff: my problem is simpler. She writes in the afterward that women as a whole had little influence over Wittgenstein. I’ve already discussed bisexual erasure before; I won’t hash it again. Needless to say, it sounds presumptuous, doesn’t it? In terms of facts, it is reported that Wittgenstein had close relations to his sisters (for the most part). A blog I once read once discussed GEM Anscombe as an “honorary man” (what?). And though his romance with Marguerite ended, it was not a short affair, nor was it without feeling. Even after that, Wittgenstein continued to be invested in her life, the type of work she did or did not do.
And yet, the published interview with Marguerite has never seen translation (nor reprinting since the first Wittgenstein-Jahrbuch went out of print). I’m still trying to locate a copy since I of course ended up with the 2001/2002 Jahrbuch. Nothing is ever easy with Wittgenstein, even with him being dead for over half a century. As if there is some existential crisis to be had that a man could have relations with both men and women.
The Bloomsbury group of Oxford must have seemed like a bunch of hedonists, when it is more a freedom than clinging to labels regarding sexuality and romance (neither mutually exclusive nor does one necessitate the other for validation).
Maybe I’ll pivot to Turing. Even Monk notes how difficult it must have been for Turing to argue with Wittgenstein when surrounded by his disciples (a label Wittgenstein actually used). The deep irony of hearing Wittgenstein saying that Turing really actually agreed with him when Turing never said such. What else is there to do in that environment than remove yourself for your own sanity? Maybe we could learn more from Turing (again), especially with the anxiety over AI this day and age.
Meanwhile, I’ll continue my subversion with using Wittgenstein to argue ethics of those like Ayn Rand. (Forewarning: I dislike her. Greatly. Ethical egoism is my moral antithesis. I find it necessary to disprove her at every chance I get. After all, she popularized the love triangle trope AT THE SAME TIME.)
Until next time. Uncertainty is a friend. Let it be curiosity and live.
