Witti-Buch2 2001.qxd - Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society

Wittgenstein's Legacy for the Self
Paul Smeyers
1. Introduction
Wittgenstein's refusal to take sides on traditional philosophical issues, has generated
criticisms in different areas and from all kinds of extreme stances. For some he is the
champion of conservatism with the primordiality of the notion of the form of life (see
Nyíri); for others he is the champion of relativism, as his concept of the language game
is taken to allow questioning of the rules of the game (Lyotard). Some will emphasize the
intersubjective dimension (Bloor, Von Savigny), others will predominately focus on the
subject and her ability to express herself through the "language" she shares (Eldridge).
If ultimately the cornerstone of meaning is the community to which one belongs, there is
a real danger of conservatism or conformism and it is almost impossible to take the
changing of the world and of our concepts into account; on the other hand, if the
individual is the foundation, some boundary must be set to avoid the pitfalls of the private
language.
In the determination of the meaning of a word, the context fulfils, according to
Wittgenstein, a crucial role (i.e. the "language-game"). Within a system of thinking and
acting there occur, up to a point ("form of life"), investigations and criticisms of the
reasons and justifications that are employed in that system. We bring this inquiry to an
end, but this "... is not certain propositions striking us immediately as true, i.e. it is not a
kind of seeing on our part; it is our acting, which lies at the bottom of the language-game"
(OC, # 204). In order to be understood (i.e., to make sense), the present use may not
be radically different from the former ones. It is thus within the normal context that the
meaning of a concept is determined. As there is no absolute point of reference (neither
internal nor external), the community of language speakers forms the warrant for the
(consistency) of meaning.
It will be clear that Wittgenstein's criticism of the longing for crystalline purity also has
far-reaching implications for the domain of ethics. The ethical problem confronts us with
the claims of other persons. To say that the meaning of "good", and of "human", is not
once and for all determined, does not mean that it does not matter what we do. Precisely
because we have options it is not always evident that we will follow this or that
alternative. Convincing someone on the ethical level is not (simply) a matter of giving
them reasons. It is more like a practice in which other people are interactively involved.
290