home

Wittgenstein, Obama, and a Beetle in a Box

"Pathetic" has turned into a generic insult in the American version of English, but once upon a time it meant something on the far side of "pitiful," another essentially religious word that has lost most of its original force, and it isn't exactly surprising that pity would turn into a joke in a country where the left side of the political spectrum sponsored "Welfare Reform."

"You're pitiful."

"You're pathetic."

These characterizations are insults in America today, and vividly illustrate the absurdity of calling the United States a Christian country just because the parking lots of suburban mega-churches fill up on Sunday.

You might hope that the concept of pity could somehow survive the perversion of its name into something like contempt, but it's exactly this hope that was demolished in one of the most famous passages in the history of philosophy, Section 293 of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

If I say of myself that it is only from my own case that I know what the word "pain" means - must I not say the same of other people too? And how can I generalize the one case so irresponsibly? Now someone tells me that he knows what pain is only from his own case! --Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. --Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. --But suppose the word "beetle" had a use in these people's language? --If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty. --No, one can 'divide through' by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is. That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant.

As remote as this paradox of "private language" may seem to be from everyday experience, it floated back into my consciousness last week when President Obama attacked suspected militants in Pakistan. About 18 people were killed, "including women and children," according to the Los Angeles Times.

A few days later, Barack and Michelle Obama visited the school where their daughters Malia and Sasha are enrolled, and there were big smiles all around. Michelle made a little joke about the unpaid postition of First Lady, and Barack read the children a story about Neil Armstrong, and then the President and his beautiful family went back to the White House.

 

< Trying to clear the thicket called rendition. | We Should Celebrate Some Stimulus Cuts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I did not realize (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by JamesTX on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    Wittgenstein had chosen the word pain to demonstrate this concept. Phenomenological experience is ultimately private, so using language to designate those experiences is troublesome. I suspect there is little hope of change, as so much of our society is based on the idea that those things are objective and can be talked about as if they were. Being a pain medication activist, this has been my central argument in a world where statutes, lawyers, and even doctors talk without reservation about the ability of experts to assess the pain experience of another person. It is particularly troubling when nobody raises an eyebrow to the idea that an expert can make valid conclusions about the severity of pain experience in patients. Thanks for the reference!

    Pain (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    I think Wittgenstein's choice of pain as an example in this famous passage was anything but accidental, and in general the religious aspect of almost everything he wrote has been underestimated or ignored by the Wittgenstein "industry."

    I salute your activism about pain medication. It seems to me that government interference with relieving the suffering of terminal patients (and others) is one of the most miserable aspects of the "war on drugs," and Siobhan Reynolds is one of my heroes.

    Keep up the good work!


    Parent