A Dascalian Approach to the Polemics on Voices and Styles in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations

Among the many polemics raging among the commentators on the Wittgensteinian corpus I would like to highlight two: the identification of the voices appearing in his Philosophical Investi

A Dascalian Approach to the Polemics on Voices and

Styles in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations

José María Ariso

1. Introduction

Kampits (1985) was right when, almost three decades ago now, he deplored the fact that the

exceptional fascination aroused by Wittgenstein’s work had engendered not only an industry around the philosopher, but also a whole scholasticism that has feverishly debated and analysed each and

every one of his pronouncements Among the many polemics raging among the commentators on

the Wittgensteinian corpus I would like to highlight two: the identification of the voices appearing

in his Philosophical Investigations – hereinafter simply the “Investigations”; and the clarification in this work of the role played by the style in which it was written Both polemics have been supported

by different arguments On the one hand, von Savigny (1994) pointed out that in order to

understand what Wittgenstein intended to say in the Investigations it is first essential to clarify

which of the several voices that can be defined in the dialogue structure of this work is the one that expresses the opinion and ideas of the Viennese thinker Elsewhere, Schulte (1990) indicated that the style of thinking determines its space, as it imposes a particular universe of ideas whereby this space becomes impenetrable to other forms of thought Although both these polemics first arose many decades ago, they continue alive today with no signs of a solution in sight However, the present work takes as its reference the distinction established by Dascal (1995) between discussions, disputes and controversies in order to characterise the two polemics and the relationships between them, which places us in an ideal position for analysing to what extent the Dascalian propositions for the resolution of polemics can help point us towards a denouement for the polemics in our study

2. The two polemics under study

Recently, Kanterian (2012) clearly and brilliantly described the polemic among well-known Wittgensteinians on the relationship between the style and philosophy of the Viennese thinker, and

my presentation of this debate will thus be reduced to a brief summary of Kanterian’s exposition

However, before proceeding to this summary, I will outline the main positions in the polemic on the

role of the voices in Wittgenstein’s Investigations.

2.1. The polemic on the voices

This polemic first arose when Cavell (1968) distinguished two voices in the Investigations: the voice of temptation and the voice of correction Neither expresses the opinions or views of

Wittgenstein, but both voices configure a particular type of confession aimed at forcing us to look at philosophical problems from a different perspective The importance of Cavell’s interpretation in

the debate on the identification of the voices in the Investigations lies not only in the fact that he

originated this debate, but also because it is the reference from which all the other opinions in this polemic have emanated Shortly after, Binkley (1973) conceded the confessional nature of the

Investigations, but with the caveat that Cavell was only right if the voice of correction were

understood not as the correct, but as the correcting: the Austrian philosopher’s aim was not to come

up with true propositions but to achieve peace and freedom in his thoughts In the same line, Staten (1986) reported that to refer to a voice of correction or orthodoxy would be incompatible with Wittgenstein’s philosophical method In an attempt to resolve this matter, Barnett (1990) made a subtle reworking of Cavell’s model which referred to the two voices that can potentially be found within all philosophers: one voice that poses philosophical problems, and another explanatory voice that shows at what specific point the philosophical meditation has become separate from the

ordinary use of language Rowe (1994) believed that when Wittgenstein wrote the Investigations he was in a similar state to Saint Augustine at the time of writing his Confessions, as the Austrian

philosopher was by then capable of understanding and resisting a number of temptations that had

their origin in the Tractatus This is why Rowe maintained that the voice of temptation often

corresponds to what Wittgenstein was at some point in the past, while the voice of correction expresses what he is now Eldridge (1997) argues that Wittgenstein, far from presenting a theory, wants to show us a dialogue that does not lead to any discovery, because at no time are we told – to mention just one example − what thinking is; in fact, Eldridge points out that two very similar voices can be distinguished in this dialogue to the ones proposed by Cavell On the one hand, we have a voice embodying the indefatigable seeker of explanations; and on the other, a voice intent on showing that there is nothing hidden beyond the ordinary use of our language Precisely because Wittgenstein does not set out to offer any new discovery, but to reveal what has always been in plain sight, Heaton (2010) favours replacing the distinction between a voice of temptation and

another of correction with a dialogue between a voice of temptation and another of truthfulness:

thus Wittgenstein’s methodology can be seen as a talking cure which is distinctly confessional in

nature As Schroeder (2006) rightly says, the staging of the therapist-patient interaction is particularly suited to the detailed illustration of the healing process McGinn (1997) also highlights the therapeutic character of these dialogues, and identifies two very similar voices to those described by Heaton: specifically, McGinn distinguishes a voice that illustrates the desire to seek explanations everywhere, and a therapeutic voice that aims to overcome these temptations by analysing specific cases

The criticisms and qualifications of the initial model proposed by Cavell took on a new dimension when disagreements began to emerge as to the number of voices that can be

distinguished in the Investigations The fact remains that most of the authors refer to two voices: in

addition to the authors mentioned previously – and others to whom we will refer later, Eagleton (1993) and Sluga (1996) distinguish the voices of Wittgenstein and an imaginary interlocutor

described by Dilman (2002) as the Viennese philosopher’s alter ego However, some authors have

discerned more than two voices Stern (2004) alluded to the voice of a philosophical narrator, an interlocutor, and a commentator; whereas Brunner (1985) distinguished as many as five voices in

passages §§156-178 of the Investigations Pichler (2004) was more incisive when he stated that the

dialogue structure conceived around the figures of Wittgenstein and an opponent was inadequate, as

it not only generated a debate in which the subject of discussion is simply whether the opponent in that dialogue is Wittgenstein himself or a fictitious philosopher, but had also failed to take into

account that the structure of the conversations in the Investigations is polyphonic As if it were not

enough, Cavell himself (1995), whose initial distinction between a voice of temptation and another

of correction was the cornerstone of this polemic, subsequently indicated that the Investigations

were not only the result of the pressure or influence of those two voices, but that furthermore a third particularly distinctive voice should be added: the attainment of silence In an attempt to shed light

on this ambiguous contribution by Cavell, Peters (2010: 161) distinguishes three voices and a

“nonvoice”: the voice of the child –innocent, and continually asking elementary questions−, the

voice of madness –expressing philosophical questions that appear absurd from the point of view of ordinary language−, the voice of the cultural or tribal other –which makes it possible to illustrate both the familiarity and the strangeness of our own way of life−, and the “nonvoice” of animals who simply “do not use language” (PI §25), as is the case of the dog (cf PI §§250, 357, 650) or the famous lion, which we would be unable to understand even were he able to speak (cf PI: 223)

By this stage in the exposition it is already clear that the interpretations that have been made of

the intricate play of voices in the Investigations correspond to a greater or lesser degree to a

dialogue model in which a voice – or subject − that has fallen prey to linguistic complications receives the help of another voice – or individual − that guides him in dissolving these conceptual misunderstandings; or else they constitute variations on that model, as in the case of the peculiar interpretation of Peters I indicated last of all However, the interpretations I have alluded to so far

do not sufficiently emphasise the role allotted to the reader within this play of voices This role is far from negligible, because according to Payne (1995), we cannot approach the text of the

Investigations as though we – as readers – were able to maintain a certain distance from it In fact, Leiber (1997) cautions that the Investigations constitute a first-person narrative in which the “I” that

corresponds to Wittgenstein becomes a “we” when human understanding is put to the test; however

according to Leiber the Investigations are also narrated in the second person, as the reader is

addressed, and his or her possible replies are suggested or criticised Birk (2004) goes a little further

in noting that on becoming immersed in the text, the reader must identify with each of the voices to such an extent that he ends by taking part in the discussion as an interlocutor and must decide for himself which voice expresses the correct opinion Birk considers this to be the reason the dialogues

in the Investigations are not reduced to a merely linguistic dimension Therefore, when analysing

these dialogues it is not enough to simply distinguish a voice of temptation and another of correctness; we must focus above all on the dialogue set up between the text and the reader This same dialogue between text and reader led Majetschak (2010) to call attention to a series of marked similarities between Freudian psychoanalysis and Wittgensteinian philosophical therapy; these

similarities highlight above all the resistances to which the subject seeking to release himself from a

philosophical problem must also respond In fact, I have indicated (Ariso, 2012) that the voices

appearing in the Investigations verbalise both the resistances that arise in profound philosophical

reflection, and the attempts to overcome these resistances There is a reason Wittgenstein (CV) declared that it is not a difficulty of the intellect what has to be overcome, but a difficulty of the will It is therefore hardly surprising that anyone who understands philosophy as a purely

intellectual pursuit fails to see in the Investigations anything more than a work whose theories could

have been formulated much more simply

2.2.The polemic on style

As I said earlier, in this section I will summarise Kanterian’s exposition (2012) of the polemic

arising with regard to the relationship between the style of the Investigations and its philosophical

content Two distinct bands can be noted in this polemic In the first place, those who Kanterian

labels “non-stylists” consider Wittgenstein’s style to be a personal – or at most cultural – peculiarity

that is totally devoid of philosophical relevance The non-stylists include authors such as Kripke

(1989) who see no relation between the style and the method of the Investigations, for the simple

reason that in his opinion this supposed method corresponds to a therapeutic and non-theoretical discipline, but not to philosophy However there are also some commentators among the non-stylists who endorse Wittgenstein’s method, while considering his style to be a personal peculiarity lacking in philosophical interest For example, Strawson (1968) maintained that it was completely unnecessary to use Wittgenstein’s style as a basis for presenting his ideas clearly, although Strawson considered the Viennese thinker’s philosophical method to be an effective tool In this same line Hilmy (1987) also considers Wittgenstein’s style to have little importance in regard to his method based on the description of language games, whereas Glock (2004) sees deep and interesting arguments in the work of Wittgenstein which – as they are expressed in a highly idiosyncratic style – must be reconstructed and described by means of a conscientious exegesis

In second place, Kanterian uses the term “hyper-stylists” to describe the commentators who

do not accept that the content of the Investigations can be disassociated from the style of this work The main defender of this idea is Cavell himself (1968), who perceives in the Investigations an

extraordinary tension between the deep-seated human need to transcend the ordinary and the ultimate failure of this attempt: in the final analysis, Cavell (2001) believes there is no aesthetic

aspect at all in the Investigations that is merely ornamental and can be separated from the content of

the work without detracting from it Kanterian also includes among the hyper-stylists the authors

who do not see the Investigations as a work of dialogue but rather as “polyphonic” Stern (2004) –

as we saw earlier − distinguishes three voices, none of which corresponds to Wittgenstein, whose opinions are expressed only at those times when he abandons his most serious tone and offers a simile or an observation on a trivial matter that philosophers do not normally stop to consider However Pichler (2004) is the author who has been most insistent on the polyphonic nature of the

Investigations, a work where an indefinite number of voices might be expected which – far from

competing in pursuit of a supposed philosophical victory – merely negate any dogmatic stance through their very multiplicity Incidentally, Wallgren (2006) notes that Pichler’s polyphonic approach should not be confused with the therapeutic view of Wittgenstein’s philosophy According

to Wallgren, Wittgenstein’s therapeutic philosophy is based on an authoritarian spirit as it

presupposes that once philosophy disappears – at least provisionally − with the dissolution of the conceptual misunderstanding in question, there should be a general consensus as to what this misunderstanding consisted of, and what it prevented us from seeing; in contrast, the polyphonic approach does not demand such a consensus, but allows everyone to make up their own mind

3. The two polemics according to Dascal’s model

After this description of the polemics on the identification of the voices and the relationship

between style and philosophical content in Wittgenstein’s Investigations, I will go on to offer a brief

exposition of the three ideal types of polemics described by Dascal (1995) − “discussion”, “dispute” and “controversy”, thereby establishing the basis for an analysis of how the two polemics in this study can be characterised according to Dascal’s model

To begin with, discussions are polemics that revolve around a clearly delimited theme In these

cases the contenders tend to recognise that the main reason for their disagreement is an error of concept or procedure, although they do not usually concur as to the nature of the error and who is

committing it Another feature of discussions is that they can be solved when the error in question is

corrected by applying procedures accepted by the contenders

In contrast, subjects involved in disputes maintain that the reason for the disagreement is not an

error, but rather a profound difference in attitudes, feelings or simply preferences As there are no commonly accepted procedures for correcting any error, disputes are not resolved, but – in the best

of cases – dissolved.

Finally controversies tend to begin by revolving around a specific subject, but soon spread – following an unpredictable course − to other problems, reflecting profound disagreements about

fundamental premises of a factual, methodological or conceptual nature Thus even though they are based on some common principles which prevents the controversy from becoming totally anarchical

or arbitrary, there is constant disagreement as to the interpretation of the data, the methodology used, the basic theory, etc As these divergences involve both attitudes and preferences and disagreements on the procedures for problem-solving, they are not restricted to any of these aspects, and cannot therefore be either solved or dissolved In the best of cases, controversies can be

resolved via one of these three routes:

a)The contenders or their reference community can recognise that one of the bands involved in the controversy has accumulated sufficient arguments in their favour to settle it

b)The controversy can facilitate the emergence of new positions that are acceptable to the parties in dispute

c)Each of the parties involved can clarify to the other what the disagreements generating the controversy consist of

Dascal adds that the common feature of disputes, discussions and controversies is that they do not appear in their pure state: in other words, real polemics tend to contain elements of each of the three ideal types of debate, which does not prevent analysts from being able to distinguish which of these types is dominant in each case In view of this, I will proceed to analyse what is the predominant type in the two debates that are the object of the present study

The polemic on the identification of the voices that can be discerned in the Investigations contains several elements typical of discussions After all, this polemic has a clearly defined theme

– the identification of voices − and one of its main disagreements revolves around a conceptual error – namely the interpretation of the voice Cavell attributes to correction, in addition to which the contenders appear to be far from reaching a consensus as to who is committing this conceptual error

and who is right about it However, I do not believe this polemic can be solved, as there is no

procedure accepted by the contenders that enables the conceptual error to be corrected: since

Wittgenstein never clearly expressed which were the voices in the Investigations and what function

or functions each one of them had, it is extremely difficult to reach a consensus on this point

The polemic on the voices seems to have fewer similarities with a dispute, as there are

apparently no significant differences in attitudes, feelings or preferences among the contenders However, and in spite of appearances, I consider there to be an important difference on this point

As I outlined in my exposition on this polemic, most of the authors have focused on the conceptual error I indicated in the paragraph above, thereby merely confining themselves to an interpretation of the text which allots no place to the reader, while other authors go so far as to include the reader in

one form or another in the play of voices in the Investigations Thus the first group of authors

appear to be satisfied with a limited interpretation of the content of the text, whereas the second group places the onus on the reader who immerses himself in the text and identifies with the different voices to the point that he ultimately ends by confronting his own resistances

In my opinion, the polemic on the voices can be understood as a controversy Let us see why.

In the first place, this polemic arose around a specific issue, but then took an unpredictable course

Indeed, when Cavell formulated the initial distinction between a voice of temptation and another of correction, it must have been difficult to predict that years later an author like Peters – taking Cavell

himself as his basis − would find in the Investigations the voices of the child, madness, the cultural

or tribal other, and even a “nonvoice” We have also seen that the initial interpretation as a dialogue was questioned as a conceptual error, and that alternative interpretations were proposed with a greater number of voices, even going so far as to include the reader himself in one way another It is clear that if this polemic did not follow an anarchical course it was because the contenders share the

conviction that the plays of voices in the Investigations have a markedly therapeutic character It is

also evident that the mutual criticisms between the participants in this polemic have been somewhat lukewarm: I believe that this is due precisely to the contenders’ shared conviction that the

Investigations is a text with a therapeutic nature However, as I said earlier, the disagreements are

not limited either to differences in attitudes and preferences or to judgements on conceptual errors, and thus in principle they can be neither solved nor dissolved

Let us now analyse the polemic on style This polemic, which revolves around a very specific

issue – namely the relationship between the style and the content of the Investigations, cannot be

solved because although it is based on a profound discrepancy over a conceptual error – a

characteristic element of discussions, there are no procedures accepted by the contenders capable of

correcting it This error is none other than the view of “philosophy” championed by non-stylists and hyper-stylists: the first are mostly analytic philosophers who – unlike the second – do not consider philosophy to be a therapeutic and non-theoretical discipline, and both bands therefore also have a very different understanding of what must be considered important from a philosophical point of view

It is apparent that the polemic on style in the Investigations has much more of a dispute about it,

as non-stylists and hyper-stylists are divided by such a profound difference in attitudes, feelings and preferences that it appears practically impossible for both sides ever to reach a point where they will accept a common notion of “philosophy”

The fact that this polemic is not reduced either to divergences with regard to attitudes and preferences or to disagreements on the procedures to be followed for solving problems means it can

be considered a controversy It is true that the positions of non-stylists and hyper-stylists are so far apart that the criticisms that they have levelled at each other tend to be somewhat predictable;

however, and as we shall see below, any attempts to reconcile both positions constitute developments in the controversy which, as they appear and are enriched, become ever more difficult

to predict Therefore, if this controversy has developed to its present point it is because it is based

on certain common principles, such as the acceptance of the fact that the philosophical problems addressed by Wittgenstein are conceptual misunderstandings which are gradually resolved through

a description of the uses of language

Once we have considered both polemics as controversies, we are in a position to continue with their analysis To start with, the controversy of the voices can be understood as a polemic arising within the controversy on style After all, Wittgenstein ultimately uses the voices as a stylistic resource This relation of inclusion is perceived more clearly if we note that the controversy on style

is between hyper-stylists and non-stylists, whereas the controversy of the voices occurs only within one of these bands: the hyper-stylists, i.e., the band formed by authors interested in exploring the

peculiarities of style in the Investigations Evidence of this is that the three representatives of the

hyper-stylist band mentioned by Kanterian are Cavell, Pichler and Stern; in other words, the authors who have arguably been most influential in the polemic on the identification of the voices An added proof of the inclusion of the controversy of the voices within the controversy on style is that the latter is very close to a dispute due to the profound disagreements between the opposing bands; whereas the first is much closer to a discussion than to a dispute, since the main disagreement does not involve significant differences in attitude, feelings or preferences between the contenders, but a conceptual error

4 Possible resolutions of the controversies

In this section I propose to analyse how far each of the three methods of resolving controversies indicated by Dascal could point the way to settling the two controversies in this study

The first route to resolution highlighted by Dascal was to recognise that one of the bands had accumulated a sufficient number of arguments in its favour to settle the controversy conclusively But while in the controversy on the voices there are no objective proofs with which to devise arguments accepted by the parties involved, in the controversy on styles there are such deep-seated differences between non-stylists and hyper-stylists that the conditions never occur for one of these bands to concede that the other’s argument has become so overwhelming that it leaves no room for reply However on this point the problem is not the difficulty of compiling a sufficient number of weighty arguments, but that the basic premises espoused by each band mean the arguments of the opposing side are not only seen as incorrect but also as irrelevant or lacking in interest

The second option is much more interesting and promising Indeed, the evolution of both controversies has generated a series of models and interpretations that point to an acceptable position of equilibrium for the parties in dispute The main attempt to find an intermediate and stable position in the controversy of the voices was made by Pichler (2004), who expressly

recognised that the fact that he himself set out to understand the Investigations as a polyphonic

work in no way implied that any interpretation seeking to extract theses or theories from this work should be rejected In Pichler’s opinion, these types of interpretations do not concur with

Wittgenstein’s intention when writing the Investigations: although he admits that some

commentators may choose to make an analysis in consonance with Wittgenstein, while others may approach this work based on the perspective of a systematic philosophy Therefore Pichler leaves room in his polyphonic interpretation for all the interpretations that have been made on the

Investigations, both by hyper-stylists and non-stylists In fact, Pichler believes that Wittgenstein’s role in the Investigations is none other than to analyse successively the advantages and

disadvantages of theoretical and therapeutic or dissolvent philosophy However I consider Pichler’s contribution to the controversies of the voices and style as merely a commendable invitation to

admit the mere coexistence of these positions: since far from suggesting how these positions could

be integrated into a global or common interpretation, Pichler leaves it to Wittgenstein – and by

extension to the reader himself − to decide what approach he considers to be the most suitable, which unfortunately causes us to return to our original point of departure

In the controversy on style we have seen the appearance of not one but several attempts to explain the way Wittgenstein adapted his particular style to the philosophical method exemplified in

the Investigations Kanterian (2012) gathered these contributions under the label “moderate stylism”; specifically, he referred to the works of Kienzler (1997), Heal (1995) and Baker and

Hacker (2005), whose basic ideas I will summarise briefly In the first place, Kienzler (1997)

suggests that Wittgenstein may have adopted the style of the Investigations when he wrote the first draft of this work and became aware that the style he had used previously in the Brown Book did

not allow him to reflect the conflictive aspects of a philosophical problem with the brilliance found

in the prose of Frege In second place, Heal (1995) maintains that the Investigations are as full of

arguments as any other work of traditional philosophy, but notes that if the style had been different, four basic aspects of the Wittgensteinian discourse would have been lost: placing ideas reminiscent

of the Tractatus in the mouth of an interlocutor to demonstrate their vigour; referring to the reader

as “you” or to the eternally-tempted philosopher at the heart of each subject through the “we”;

highlighting the therapeutic character of the Investigations through a therapist-patient dialogue; and