Wittgenstein's Social Reality
When talking about Wittgenstein's latter work, it's important to note the importance of social norms in the cosm of the individual.
Wittgenstein advocated an adherence to social norms in life, or what can otherwise be called earning or even accepting your labels. Language games between people as time progresses is determined by the social reality in which one lives in and seemingly comes to accept, stipulatively regarding whether one wants to reaffirm their social identity. Laws, politics, social norms play a significant role in becoming who you really are.
This has mostly been true sociologically for the period since Wittgenstein's life until his death in Europe. Yet, since then social norms around the world have somewhat deteriorated or significantly improves for minorities in the West, and even Russia. What I mean by this is that the importance of laws is not respected enough in engendering social norms that one engages in and for blacks in the use the refusal to accept social norms in the 1950's onwards.
I have yet, one observation to make about this. Namely, what is the role of present day man in regards to social norms that are becoming increasingly economical? In my past I have wondered whether "death" is becoming less of a social norm or deviating from it in regards to longevity companies.
Furthermore, with regard to the social reality of the 1970's and increasing computerization, one can imagine that social norms are becoming increasingly reinforced.
What are your thoughts about the above?
Wittgenstein advocated an adherence to social norms in life, or what can otherwise be called earning or even accepting your labels. Language games between people as time progresses is determined by the social reality in which one lives in and seemingly comes to accept, stipulatively regarding whether one wants to reaffirm their social identity. Laws, politics, social norms play a significant role in becoming who you really are.
This has mostly been true sociologically for the period since Wittgenstein's life until his death in Europe. Yet, since then social norms around the world have somewhat deteriorated or significantly improves for minorities in the West, and even Russia. What I mean by this is that the importance of laws is not respected enough in engendering social norms that one engages in and for blacks in the use the refusal to accept social norms in the 1950's onwards.
I have yet, one observation to make about this. Namely, what is the role of present day man in regards to social norms that are becoming increasingly economical? In my past I have wondered whether "death" is becoming less of a social norm or deviating from it in regards to longevity companies.
Furthermore, with regard to the social reality of the 1970's and increasing computerization, one can imagine that social norms are becoming increasingly reinforced.
What are your thoughts about the above?
Comments (21)
Can you support this conjecture?
Well, yes, by the very fact of how bias and norms create quasi-rules of how language is used in a society. I understand that terms become reified with time as these tendencies abate or are pressured due to how social norms progress.
I can also mention the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or the Flynn effect likewise.
I think this is correct, basically one has to respect (to some extent at least) the rules of language implicit in each particular form of life, to avoid social dissaproval, or even going to jail.
One of my university professors gave as an example of this a time where he was invited to give a talk about corruption in a very corrupt country (one where he was very critical of it), and during his talk he had to go with a group of cops who were behind him, because his life was literally in danger just by doing that.
From what I've heard, such things do happen more often that one would think at first.
In what sense does Wittgenstein advocate an adherence to these norms?
I am asking, can you cite an example of the specific assertion, "Wittgenstein advocated an adherence to social norms in life"... either direct quotes or secondary summations?
Indeed.
I think the idea of adherence to the rules of language paints a false picture. It is not as if we follow a rule book. When Wittgenstein used the analogy of a game in PI one thing he pointed to was that not all games are played according to pre-established rules. Some games you make up as you go along.
Quoting Fooloso4
I think linguistics and social sciences provide a large degree of information towards this sentiment by the very way we obey from childhood certain implicit or explicit "rules".
I think you know all about the life of Wittgenstein in treating his life as a 'duty' or even in personal letters to Russell. And, then finally becoming antiphilosophical in Cambridge and saying one ought to simply live out these social norms in a reality presented in which one accepts (or remains sane) in these sentiments of society.
As others have pointed out, this is an incorrect reading of Wittgenstein. Gesturing vaguely to "lingustics and social science" and the fact that "Wittgenstein treated life as a duty" is not even remotely the kind of evidence needed to back up this claim.
Quoting Shawn
Far from that, Wittgenstein repeatedly rejected the labels assigned to him, moving restlessly from heir to a fortune to engineer to philosopher to teacher to hermit to architect to hospital orderly... while explicitly rejecting being labeled a behaviourist or logical atomist or logical empiricist.
I think you need to drop mention of Wittgenstein from your thesis.
But, this is how social dynamics evolves through time, no? So, I concede that perhaps dropping Wittgenstein might be necessary.
I kind of advocate, the notion that a social reality where social dynamics evolve in this manner that precisely label individuals, using whatever method necessary to do so, would render one to assume that Wittgenstein should have stated this explicitly, no?
Nothing. I was interested in a discussion.
Wittgenstein might have not said this, and I mistakenly said that he did; but, isn't it a feature of language that this does actually happen normally?
That what does actually happen normally? That people follow norms? Yes, that is (statistically) normal.
Quoting Shawn
To borrow your own example, do you think it was unethical:
Quoting Shawn
That the feature of ethics in terms of Wittgenstein, happens in regards to what those social norms consist of. I think, that shouldn't be unclear.