Reshef Agam-Segal
  • Home
  • CV
  • Selected Papers
  • Notes and Half-Thoughts
  • Contact

Thinking and Willing Subjects in the Tractatus 

7/15/2013

5 Comments

 
When, in philosophy, there is a difficult issue, whose difficulty is not due to the depth of the issue, or not merely, but also to the fact that there is actually an entangled huddled knot of issues, which are hard to separate and untie, and especially when those issues pertain to the mystical, and the religious, and the ethical—when this happens in philosophy, there is a temptation (if not a tendency) to imagine that the mystical is a property of the entanglement itself. Some might thus want to keep the knot, for fear that untying it would destroy the depth and that something of importance will be lost. This is depth through muddle, mysticism through confusion. – A bad idea.

Something of this sort happens often when people approach the cluster of ideas Wittgenstein had in the Tractatus with regard to ethics, and the limits of sense, and solipsism, and the mystical, and the end of philosophy. And what I want to do is not so much to separate, but to note a couple of threads in this cluster, which I think should be separated.

In the Notebooks, Wittgenstein makes a distinction between the thinking and willing subjects: 5.8.16: “The thinking subject is surely mere illusion. But the willing subject exists.” He uses the term ‘thinking subject’ in Tractatus 5.631. And the discussion he has in the 5.6s is separated from the discussion he has in 6.37-4 about the will, and again from the discussion in 6.423, and 6.43. – I think this indicates that he maintained some distinction between the thinking and the willing subjects in the Tractatus—that he was treating them as separate, or separable, issues.

Commentators anyway don’t usually make much use of the distinction. They lump the two subjects—willing and thinking—together into one subject: they often call it ‘the metaphysical subject’ (a term that Wittgenstein uses in 5.633, 5.641, but not in the 6s), and they distinguish this metaphysical subject from the psychological, empirical, subject. Russell did this in the introduction, and Hacker follows in Insight and Illusion; but even Michael Kremer does this in ‘To What Extent is Solipsism a Truth?’

I suspect that this lumping together of the two issues—(a) the considerations regarding the limits of meaning or the philosophical confusions regarding those limits, connected to the thinking subject, and (b) the problems regarding the meaningfulness of moral propositions, connected to the willing subject—I suspect that lumping them together is, among other things, a residue of a conception of the limits of meaning as borders; a conception that Wittgenstein battled. That is, the two issues are lumped together, I suspect, because in the background there is a single picture that guides and confers a formal unity on the discussion: most commonly, a picture of a domain of meaning with borders that we cannot cross.

Another, perhaps stronger, reason for this lumping may be the strong intuition regarding the unity of the self: we don’t have two of them, but only one, and it is hard to believe Wittgenstein thought different. But, in response, the whole question here is what it means to have a single self; what is the unity of the self. I suggest that investigating these two selves is, among other things, investigating the unity of the self: the sort of unity it has. By lumping the two issues together, we are running the risk of assuming, rather than looking at, what unity the self has. – Anyway, what we need is to look: look at the two cases.

So, why is the distinction between the thinking and willing subject of interest? – Suggestion:

Putting the empirical subject aside, the distinction between the willing and the thinking subject echo the Kantian distinction between theoretical and practical forms of judgment. That is, it is a distinction between kinds of mind—mindedness, making things intelligible, making them thinkable, owning the world in thought and language.

But for Wittgenstein the distinction between kinds of mind is really VERY deep. Wittgenstein does not understand the distinction between theoretical and practical in the way Kant does. First, I think it is fair to say that for Wittgenstein to think is to act (thinking is a verb); and in this sense thinking is very much part of the practical. So far, then, we don’t have the distinction that Wittgenstein is interested in—not yet. The distinction begins to emerge when we see that for Wittgenstein acting (thinking included) has nothing to do with the willing subject. The willing subject for Wittgenstein is not the one who acts. She is rather the one who changes the limits of the word—makes the world happy/unhappy.

We encounter the willing subject, for instance, when a certain course of action, apparently available, suddenly strikes us as impossible—as if it has been withdrawn from logical space. In other cases, a certain course of action may appear as encompassing the whole available space, and people say: ‘I can’t act differently.’ Simone Weil, I think, talks of the willing subject when she says: “Men can never escape from obedience to God. A creature cannot but obey. The only choice given to men, as intelligent and free creatures, is to desire obedience or not to desire it” (The Love of God and Affliction, 129). If the thinking subject is the limit, the willing subject is the one who determines where those limits are. (Or perhaps, the willing subject is the thinking subject turned on itself?)

Still—and this is the most confusing bit—the description of the activity of the willing subject hopelessly, nonsensically, but also necessarily, piggybacks on meaningful language. It makes use of language whose grammar is one of describing things that happen in the world, of actions, as if such language can capture what the willing subject does—as if the willing subject does something, acts.

Another related thought:

In the Tractatus Wittgenstein seems to be more ambivalent about the existence of the thinking subject then about the existence of the willing subject. About the thinking subject he says in 5.631: “The thinking, presenting subject; there is no such thing.” But in 5.641: “There is therefore really a sense in which the philosophy we can talk of a non-psychological I.” As I understand this, the thinking subject is not one more thing with which to make contact. As such it does not exist. Rather, the thinking subject is the maker of contact. It exists in thinking, not in being thought of: it is the limit, it is transcendental. It is subject, not object. It thus disappears every time we try to think or say something about it, as a thumb disappears when we try to catch it. Or again, the thinking subject does not stand in an external, but in an internal relation to things: Thinking of things is not a matter of capturing them from the outside, but of animating them as if from their midst.

To go back to the willing subject, the point is that this set of issues mentioned in the last paragraph does not present itself again when Wittgenstein comes to the discussion about the willing subject in the 6.4s. By the time he gets to discussing that, he has moved on to other issues. In other words, for Wittgenstein the non-existence of the willing subject as a thing in the world is different from the non-existence of the thinking subject as a thing in the world. Of both subjects we cannot speak: both do not require that we speak of them to reveal themselves; both are subjects not objects. But unlike the thinking subject, the (need to talk of the) willing subject does not disappear as a result of the philosophical argument. (And this is connected to a distinction between different kinds of effects that nonsense may have on us, which Cora Diamond makes in ‘Ethics Imagination and the Method of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.’) As a corollary, the overcoming of the thinking self and the overcoming of the willing self are two different achievements—even if not entirely separate: the one, I suspect, is a necessary metaphor for the other.

5 Comments
j.
7/15/2013 03:48:41 pm

i don't know how this (following) matters, but if you hear these phrases as borrowings from schopenhauer, there's not much temptation to conflate the two subjects, since in schopenhauer's usage the phrases refer emphatically to distinct subjects. there might then be a question of the kind of unity between them that wittgenstein might assert the existence of, considering that schopenhauer asserts an identity and begs off accounting for it (since it is the 'mystery par excellence').

it might suit your purposes well that schopenhauer calls that identity 'the world-knot'.

Reply
reshef
7/15/2013 09:57:09 pm

Thanks J.

I did not have Schopenhauer in mind. I don't think I am in a position to say how relevant he is here. Probably very. But then, I'm not sure why for W there should be a further question about the unity of the two subjects. That is, I'm not sure why this discussion as a whole could not be an account for what it is to have a (single) mind, or be a self. What more should one want?

One thing that might help is a better understanding what W says when he says in 6.37 that there is only logical necessity. Do you know anything good on this? (I'm not sure it will really help; it might just allow us to better separate issues that continually get entangled.)

Reply
j.
7/16/2013 04:10:03 pm

you're right, it could be. i just figured, given that schopenhauer's own distinction is extremely unsatisfactory (though perhaps this is a necessary consequence of his system, and perhaps schopenhauer kind of relishes it), and given the very identification of two subjects, it's a natural question for a philosopher to ask: 'are you sure they aren't really the same, or unifiable, or etc. etc. somehow? or maybe you made a mistake and there is really just one?' etc.

i haven't studied this carefully, but i've always found martin stokhof's book, 'world as life and one', respectable, and he's sensitive to the existence of the issues here, at least. both there being only logical necessity, and the multiplicity of subjects.

Reply
reshef
7/17/2013 08:45:55 pm

thanks.

fotograf elbląg link
1/30/2014 02:32:07 am

Bookmarked your blog, it's awsome

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed


                    See my
    Academia.edu page



    Previous Notes

    Excluded Middle

    Moral Clarification


    The Will in the Tractatus

    Morality and Creation

    Moral Skepticism


    Understanding language and understanding music - The unity of a sentence, and the unity of a salad

    In what way secondary and absolute uses are nonsense (2)

    Another way of using nonsense

    Ethics as an Aspect of Philosophy - In what sense is there an ethical point to the Tractatus

    Interpretation as finding a way to say what the writer does - the Tractatus for example

    In what way secondary and absolute uses are nonsense

    Art is a matter of use - two claims, and a thought about the relation to ethics

    Both Aspects at the Same Time - in connection with Wittgenstein's early views on ethics

    Thinking and Willing Subjects in the Tractatus

    Two notions of "Family Resemblance" and a relation to Aspect-Perception


    The experience of thinking

    The Figurative and the Literal: two kinds of picturing: making reality thinkable

    What’s the Point of Figurative Language?

    ‘Juliet is the sun’ again – What kind of metaphor is it?

    Secondary and Absolute Uses of Terms – the Problem of Irresoluteness

    Secondary and Absolute Uses of Terms – the Problem of Examples

    Wrestling with Nonsense—A Protest: Absolute Senses, Secondary Senses, Gulfs between People, Difficulties of Reality, and Philosophy.

    What’s so bad about pain?

    Between Romantics and Anatomy: Religion and Pornography in Hanoch Levin

    The transcendence of ethics – two views

    Pain as form of behavior and pain as private object

    Archives

    September 2018
    August 2017
    November 2016
    June 2016
    July 2015
    May 2015
    January 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    April 2011
    January 2011
    April 2010
    March 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009


    Blogroll

    Kelly Jolley - Quantum Est In Rebus Inane

    Duncan Richter - Language Goes on Holiday

    Matt Pianalto - Problems of Life

    Ben Pierce - Expensive Coffee

    Lars Hertzberg -
    Language is things we do

    Breaking the Silence - Israeli Soldiers Talk about the Occupied Territories




    Tags

    All
    Absolute Sense
    Action
    Aristotle
    Art
    Aspect
    Biography
    Body And Soul
    Cavell
    Clarity Of Use
    Coetzee
    Consequences
    Crary Alice
    Ethics
    First Person Authority
    Flyers And Floaters
    Form And Matter
    Hanoch Levin
    Humor
    Imagination
    Intention
    Intentions
    Interpretation
    Irresoluteness
    Jonathan Lear
    Literature
    Logic And Ethics
    Meaning Experience
    Metaphors
    Mindlessness
    Moral Clarification
    Moralism
    Morality
    Myth Of The Given
    Nonsense
    No Subject Matter
    Objects Of Comparison
    Pain
    Philosophy
    Plato
    Platonic Ideas
    Pornography
    Pot Paradox
    Privacy
    Promissory Sense
    Real Need
    Relativism
    Religion
    Resoluteness
    Riddles
    Sanity
    Secondary Sense
    Seeing
    Self Examination
    Self-Examination
    Self-expression
    Self Knowledge
    Self-Knowledge
    Sideways On
    Sideways-on
    Skepticism
    Socratic Ignorance
    Sub Specie Aeternitatis
    Thing In Itself
    Thinking Experience
    Tractatus
    Tragedy
    Trancendental
    Wittgenstein

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.