Existentialism and Analytical Philosophy Author(s): Stanley Cavell Source: Daedalus, Vol. 93, No.

3, Population, Prediction, Conflict, Existentialism (Summer, 1964), pp. 946-974 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20026868 Accessed: 05/11/2010 21:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Daedalus.

http://www.jstor.org

STANLEY Existentialism

CAVELL and Analytical Philosophy

can define the limits tasks are not always thankless. They or discern sources of courage, the of duty, or locate and release worth of hope itself. Since the task of comparing analytical phi can in a few thousand words and existentialism hardly losophy it less thank I have tried to make command such high mitigation, in less by organizing the In a brief remarks my way. following a I indicate few of these section, comparisons opening general a to in order discover be why comparison philosophies general tween them is hopeless. In Section II, I sketch a history of the main movements within I do not at analytical philosophy, something excuse The existentialism. for this of treatment tempt for disparity a is that a history of existentialism would entail history of European literature since Goethe and Hegel, whereas the stages or strands of are at once modern analytical philosophy fairly definite and widely in their histories unknown. difference is itself a of density (This as difference between them If my effort significant philosophies.) to what is called "ordinary lan puts an end to anyone's referring as and makes him recognize that he guage philosophy" positivism, more should know about positivism before dismissing?or adopting it will have been worth ?its its pains. This historical program, Hopeless in Section III, of the sketch also prepares for the specific comparison, later philosophy of Wittgenstein with in the writing Kierkegaard's It in choosing that may Unscientific appear Concluding Postscript. as these particular writings of representative analytical philosophy and existentialism I have made matters too easy for of comparison even I have the should say, therefore, myself, may subject. changed that I certainly hope the comparison does seem easy, and that while and Kierkegaard of may be untypical Wittgenstein representatives the philosophies I am making for which them stand, they are to them. Any which could hardly peripheral comparison general 946

Existentialism
not accommodate
vance.

and Analytical Philosophy

also, if differently, risk irrele

these figures would

to cover our sub aspect of any undertaking hopeless or in the fact that neither in its vastness, ject lies not merely or in the fact it lies more particularly is single; simple philosophy to self-dis that both are live and therefore open change through one another may alter with fresh to their relation and that covery, is the analytical philosophy insight and result. At the moment, and Eng in America of academic dominant mode philosophizing domi existentialism land, while (together with phenomenology) seems to be nates the there of Western and Europe; philosophizing no trade across the and incomprehension English Channel. Mutual distrust between them is one of the facts of contemporary philo sophical life. a comic is moreover The task of comparing these philosophies one. It is, in the first a or of logical, metaphysical, place, something are that these intellectual jest to suggest positions simultaneously one to one another, that is inevitably reared to incomprehensible one or the other of them, and yet that one within from only speak is both. Second, and more important, to sum going to comprehend marize either of them counters them the spirit of the philosophies The most selves. popular betrayal.
problems

For

who could be called analytical, any of the philosophers it is discussion be irrelevant; would for the existentialist, a its For the analyst, philosophy has become profession,
technical; a non-professional audience is of no more rele

vance

to him

than

it is to the

scientist.

The

existentialist

has not

traditional audience?namely, philosophy's relinquished everybody, or other; technical of any competence, regardless philosophical but his entire animus is against the idea that what has to philosophy can as no be for the because has not, told, say analyst, philosophy content of its own, but because the very content of his philosophy is that significant content cannot or be cognitively discursively some must at but be if in other articulated, communicated, all, way.1 were not I have said that these philosophies merely mutually but mutually distrustful. incomprehensible Perhaps neither specifi the blames other the for and dislocations of cally catastrophes sees as men modern each the but other of the life, symptomatic sustains tality which one wishes The help. catastrophe to recover and blocks Reason the only source of from superstition; the 947

STANLEY CAVELL other wishes to recover both the self from Reason. Yet both are modern intention and in feeling, revolutionary a charac That is, perhaps, philosophy. itself to believes every departure generally:

philosophies; from departures teristic of philosophy be escaping from an empty, hateful past, and to be setting the mind at last on the terms "analyti it is right road. Yet striking that the cal" and "existential" were to of coined initially purify philosophy the identical in to issue fool's gold in its tradition?the tendency is that of analytical systems. The discovery speculative philosophy are or useless; statements which such systems make meaningless the discovery of existentialism is that such systems make life mean to Hegelian and thought do not march theses and it is still true that what a finds wrong with philosopher an intimate measure is thinks of he what philosophy right, and a to or terms The in which say. important categories philosophy criticizes its competitors, and its culture, are an essential part of its achievement. But we should add immediately that what positive cannot be in cannot terms those criticism be of caught particular in and that The characteristic appreciated particular philosophy. of such terms of criticism is a principal theme specific differences in which of this essay, the principal way the various philosophical are While this emphasis will not be ex positions distinguished. to correct the mad between divergence pected analytical philos it and it more existentialism, may suggest a way of tracing ophy even of its correction would be de accurately?and seeing why in any case, be necessary sirable. Such an exercise will, if we are antitheses, the philosophical-cultural has fed the di history which it so far as I am is and this vergence, unattempted, knowledge, to serious it. transcend aware, that must attempt guide any II or sense, of revolution in a than half and century, we have had to the line of analytical within alone, philosophy absorb at least three such revolutions constitutes of a something record. The first grows out of the development of the new logic, mathematical logic, in the 19th century, associated most importantly to the name of Gottlob with Frege. For its application philosophy the most the young Bertrand Russell famous spokesmen were and familiar the announcement, However the fact that in hardly more thought, 948 to learn ingless. If history

are, by traditional

Existentialism
his Ludwig Wittgenstein. ously fruitful insight of their view that the real form of a proposition student

and Analytical Philosophy

and continu The commanding was by the dictum expressed or contrari is its logical form, or a masks form that the of obvious wise, proposition linguistic or distortion, its real form, and that this masking distorts unrecog of philosophy of the deepest problems nized, has produced many since Plato. For example, have recurrently puzzled philosophers over the does of asserting themselves that something possibility not exist; for to assert the nonexistence have of any given thing you it exist? If it to name it then mustn't it, and if you can name the at all, because doesn't exist, then the name can mean nothing a name can mean to. is it the refers only thing thing in saying that a name may Even if you do not feel the paradox be the name of nothing, and are convinced, indeed, that it is false, it is and why it should have trouble false, you may explaining why true to so many have seemed obviously and necessarily philoso a name is if it need not refer to phers, and what anything. What can be demonstrated Russell, put in something following Frege, a as like the In statement such "The deepest bell following way: seem that the isolated is flat" it would in the Campanile descriptive in its ordinary gram phrase, "The deepest bell in the Campanile," that particular matical dress, meant bell; and namely, something, that bell, it meant But that if it did not mean such an nothing. idea would have the consequence that one could not know whether until he had discovered the whether that phrase meant anything or denoted did, in fact, exist. And that is intolerable. it named thing not only before we does mean The phrase obviously something, names it names what what know whether it exists, but whether not it exists or not. Indeed, we could what discover whether name does or does not exist unless we knew, before to purports that fact, what the name means, and so knew what determining to look for as its bearer. The solution of this took the form puzzle means the descriptive in of saying that although phrase nothing mean it in the context does of the whole isolation, something sentence. Yet if it means in isolation, then to) nothing (refers to start context in the how does it suddenly referring something sentence? The answer is: It doesn't refer to, name, of the whole or denote at all. When sentence the whole is put into anything it turns into a compound form which form, may be read logical as follows: is the bell in the every Something deepest Campanile; is flat; if that description satisfies that thing satisfying anything 949

STANLEY CAVELL it is identical with else is the first thing?or: description nothing the In is the bell. this what that form, emerges deepest splayed as brunt of reference terms falls wholly such upon logical "every in conjunction with the variable pronoun thing" and "something" cross refer "it," the whole complex being bound together by the ence of pronouns and the logical relations and im of conjunction seem terms and and Such relations ("if-then") plication identity. to be fundamental to all and their meaning obviously language, does not on there in the any particular depend thing being world.2 and Theory of Descriptions, in the first decade of this century, it became a should be. of what analysis philosophical sense of the account brief will little have My ludicrously conveyed as it did a mode this theory was felt to have, promising of power the about solving naming, philosophical problems outstanding in the etc., not to mention meaning, identity, existence, problems serve it of I that mathematics. however, may understanding hope, sense one a to in the these purposes: of which first, way convey as re term "analysis" has been used by analytical philosophers, statements to the procedure from ordinary of translating ferring in logic; second, to suggest into their corresponding form language came to seem one way in which problems of philosophy problems to elicit one particular and of of language third, (and logic); that its problems have come from criticism of past philosophy, our the of language. logic misunderstanding was given one definitive of logic and philosophy This wedding most in Wittgenstein's its first and famous, sanctification, perhaps written and Tractatus before the book, just Logico-Philosophicus, a in 1922. Within few and First World the War, published during a group of a of it became years, major inspiration philosophers to discuss various in Vienna who had been meeting and scientists procedure from its promulgation the accepted example to share. This themselves found they problems of Vienna and the point the themselves Circle, as In became known view "Logical Positivism." they espoused forth itself in a public manifesto 1929 this group declared setting a "scientific and re of the world," what conception they called and science in the philosophy of mathematics viewing problems were concerned to solve. which they two this view contained, and hopes Of the complex of motives or three are to our purpose. The new logic relevant immediately philosophical called group 950 This is known as Russell's

Existentialism
was

and Analytical Philosophy

to serve not so much to analyze and solve traditional philosoph of the natural the logical disorder ical problems and to unmask as to construct the structure of formal systems in which languages to show the way in which science would be logically displayed, to a feed from base of observation. concepts According empirical this view, science contains or will in particular, science, physical we can know about the world, contain and it is work everything an ambitious structure to and for the show enough philosophy sources of that in is its such Indeed, purpose only knowledge. the sub ambition from defensible tellectually (apart expanding the traditional ject of pure logic itself), for, with notable exceptions, can be seen, are not it of difficult problems extremely philosophy, to and understandably but needs One obscure, meaningless. only to test these the of the famous subject problems Verifiability or of Meaning, to ask, of any statement which Theory question is not what observations of the world would show purely logical, it to be true or false; if you find that no observation could confirm its truth or or is demonstrably falsity, then the statement question without On the basis of this test most metaphysical, meaning. and religious questions turn out to be meaning ethical, aesthetic, no answers have less. They because they are not significant are Such radical dismissal of they questions; pseudo questions. no doubt nor is it somewhat did indiscriminate, subjects help as much that the view went on to describe such statements "merely" or scientific without while that cognitive meaning, acknowledging some or of emotive have kind because they may poetic meaning, that disposition still seemed to say non-scientific statements lacked or had about No them. wrong something, suspicious something or is wrong doubt about of and them, many suspicious something if the dismissal of these subjects as not philosophically respectable was indiscriminate, was that failure of discrimination fully matched in the attacks launched felt at against positivism by those who seems fair evidence in it, the violence tacked of which that, for the positivists to have in all the difficulty continued formulating to the satisfaction their criterion of meaning it of all concerned, had caught a guilty conscience napping.3 The latest phase of analytical philosophy is the most difficult for me to characterize in these few It is most strokes. brutally familiarly as I con but when believe, known, ordinary language philosophy; I feel as I suppose fronted with that phrase or any philosopher writer does when he sees his commitments a into rubric. collapsed 951

STANLEY CAVELL I feel like it and is unfair the room. But what denying leaving for one is unfair for another, so let it stand. are these: In the The relevant there components background is Russell's at and contemporary University, colleague Cambridge a nor a scientist, Moore G. E. Moore. Neither had only logician sense to go on in his studies, and he found himself good asking, faced with a traditional metaphysical thesis, "What on earth can anyone mean by saying that?" On earth is precisely where he tried to find the answer, the question all the way down to the bringing a were to If say, "There are no material ground. philosopher to show that he knew it enough consider things," Moore would one this to be false human hand and here's "Here's by saying, or if the another; so there are at least two material philoso things"; is "Time Moore would be "If you said, unreal," pher ready with, mean that no event ever follows or another event, you precedes are for after lunch I went and after for a walk, certainly wrong; that I took a bath, and after that I had tea." Such responses will hardly for many explain why Moore was, a so in influential It does, how years, figure English philosophy.4 one or con fact: theses ever, underline significant philosophical clusions often contradict our common belief s about the world, deny that we can see physical ing, for example, objects or that we know the same feelings have that other persons and thoughts we do, or that we can know any statement about the world to be certainly as we or to true; they may suggest possible something fully believe or hallucinat that we may now be dreaming be false, for example, have always recognized ing our present experiences. Philosophers common a tension between and sense, and considered philosophy to if necessary, the testing and the overthrow, of common belief to suggest is Moore's work began be one of their virtues. What is wrong; that in the conflict with common belief, philosophy that common an results overthrowing instead of philosophy's belief, are ex to in and beliefs the which those language they appeal in which the language (ordinary language, philosophy pressed cannot shows that the philosopher itself is mostly lit expressed) or on meant can what he said. What he earth erally fully have mean? the large force of philosophers the Second World War, After who had been on leave from Oxford University and re-grouped, a few years were within the within major undertaking campaigns new direction world. Under the of philosophical English-speaking 952

Existentialism
Gilbert

and Analytical Philosophy

so to of them vowed, speak, Ryle and J. L. Austin, many never the led down be that they would path. again philosophical it faded and became clouded As with most vows, over, but while it lasted in its pure form it created its own kind of exhilaration. Instead of rehearsing yet again what the hero of Beckett's Endgame the old answers," took "the old questions, these philosophers new and with sensible ordinary examples, questions, examples, was answers to sensible The result them. gave ordinary, surprising that their results were surprising. In their work, the term "ordinary" in "ordinary language philosophy" meant simply that the words and and discussed not be chosen from the would examples problems we have learned If in the past repertory. anything philosophical were it in effect pronouncing, is that this they couple of millennia, to its reputation. is not adequate If we are to ask the repertory old questions, like "What is knowledge?", then let us not begin by we know, for that the ex asking, in the old way, how example, ternal world exists, or that another world exists, or that there is calls

mind, And

or a sheet of paper in front of me. No person in his right or at least in his frame of asks such mind, ordinary questions. means if to philosophize to go out of one's mind, merely then let us fully admit that fact, and either make serious efforts to or the or to else not be transform it, subject up, give radically that is treated with distant surprised philosophy suspicion. is like any fault, In avoiding theory?which, philosophical came most easier to see in others?Oxford immediately philosophy into conflict with its competitors within the analytical temper of with Russell's of and of namely theory philosophy, descriptions non and with of logical translation, theory positivism's non-logical, For example, the Oxford scientific discourse. group accepted posi are different tivism's sense that scientific or descriptive statements from ethical and aesthetic and religious utterances. (I say 'posi tivism's sense"; but the mere fact that there is a difference had as as Plato's a been noticed and it became domi early Euthyphro, nant theme of moral philosophy from the time of Hume's Treatise and Kant's Critique Practical But the of Reason.) positivist went as the to on, difference, say that scientific state though explaining do cal as for and that non-scientific statements cognitive meaning not. The Oxford or critical these theoreti rejected philosophers terms they terms, as they rejected all the theoretical recognized or use, do ethical statements, such, and asked: what meaning, them?and compare example, have? Why why unfavorably?? have 953

a table

ments

STANLEY CAVELL seen in their own with scientific statements? Perhaps, light, they as a own. it were, have lack nothing, but, logic of their seems to The feature of ordinary which language philosophy me of the is the its of conflict greatest pervasiveness significance mean not and here I with accepted opinion; just the philosophical it shares with of its distrust, completeness positivism, something it provides but the possibility of detailed and intimate assessment assertion. Modern of philosophical has often been said philosophy to in and but doubt few have been begin skepticism, philosophers able to press their doubts very far, particularly not about their own however radical their conclusions have may assumptions, most been. is the in obvious Continental (Nietzsche exception seems to me The philosophy of ordinary philosophy.) language to into the designed nudge assumptions light of day, not because no it makes of its own, but because assumptions demonstrably itmust, or even may, stop there is no point at which philosophizing. This of this sort issues in perhaps explains why philosophizing such various criticisms of other philosophy, and why such criticisms as it has so far offered can seem easy and trivial. dishearteningly The moral I draw, however, is not that the is easy philosophy are themselves and trivial, but that its criticisms to be subjected to the same methods which have produced them. suffice for a taste of one sort of procedure One example must in Austin's work, and apotheosized, generally regarded typified, as the purest of Oxford analysis. He notes that in ordinary example we ask of the form "Why do you believe so-and questions English it so-and-so?" but almost never, so?" and "How do you know of the form "Why do you know so-and-so?" and seems, questions so-and-so?"5 From such simple facts as these, "How do you believe dozens of facts of equally humble extraction, advancing through are is to that belief and what emerge appears perhaps knowledge The have commonly not related in the way philosophers supposed. is that of Plato's famous historical most image of this relation we and igno "divided line" in the Republic: begin in complacency to more firmly founded beliefs; rance and move up then, gradually to examine our beliefs, move further in the under further pressure same direction But Austin's arrive at real knowledge. until we little contrast, supported by further strands and knots of little con are not trasts and comparisons, suggests that belief and knowledge these to be thought of in this way. They lead him to emphasize so that facts: I cannot be more certain than I am of some beliefs, 954

Existentialism

and Analytical Philosophy

I say I know, what I am expressing is not some further when as it were, unattainable belief?belief secured of range absolutely, a all future stance I take to different against contingency?but ward that certainty. In saying I know, I commit myself differently. I assume in new ways, authorize to take you explicitly authority or and stake more mind my word, my reputation my starkly. And if I refuse ever to take such am I not but steps, being cautious, or obsessional. irresponsible the philosophical image of the That it is out of its mind? That knowledge? have played tricks on us, and perhaps been in collu philosophers sion to deceive us? That the ordinary words they have misused of their no different from ours)? That is theirs (for language they have the meanings of their words, or used them changed perfunc seriousness? torily, inattentively, more or less randomly and without These are all terms of criticism used, or a such implied, by philoso as Austin. The trouble are is that either unbelievable pher they of traditional or else descriptions philosophizing, they undermine the assumptions own of Austin's Take the sugges philosophizing. tion that philosophers have not meant what they say quite seriously. been from within their own lan have, however, They speaking it is and not obvious that guage they have (except when they their words in any technical have) meant obviously un-ordinary sense. How can not have been serious, or they spoken randomly? can if And and have, then any of us may and do they speak in these ways at any time. But in that case, such discoveries as Austin or either be impossible has seemed to make would incon utterly turn suggests which in that to the extent Austin's just sequential, are discoveries traditional more becomes significant, philosophy or in a new way. We significant, significant and problematical really do mean what we say, even though we may not always appreciate its and may fail of meaning in particular ways. And implications, the same is true for philosophers. Yet we are in conflict with them if we are philosophers, then we are in conflict with ourselves ?or, as normal men. The situation if one might perhaps be explained could show that there is something about the very act of philoso or randomness unseriousness or unnoticed produces phizing which and self-defeating drift in our words. But in Austin's work, nothing or in Oxford shows that philosophy generally, anything of the kind is in fact the case. then, relation of belief and This conflict between philosophy and everyday language is also 955 What are we to say, of

STANLEY CAVELL later philosophizing of Wittgenstein, where he to take apart the act of itself. begin philosophizing his first book, to have With the Tractatus, he claimed provided definitive solutions to the problems of philosophy; he accordingly, a withdrew from the subject to become, other school among things, in his native Austria. teacher Some ten years later, in the early thirties, he came to feel that these solutions were no longer satis to to and to England, factory, and he returned philosophy, begin was soon the work of writing and private rumored lecturing which to be the major new influence in English but which philosophy, was made the with available of his appearance only publically some two in after his death. 1953, years Philosophical Investigations In that book he says, "What we do is to bring words back to their everyday uses." Presumably, then, he felt that in philosophy a it now became from their contexts; words were unhinged prob it happened, and why lem for him how this could happen what it happen that makes and how language there is about philosophy can allow it to happen. None of the criticisms of the tradition or the Oxford or the Moore positivists by philosophers produced seemed to him to be right, to do justice to the pain, the pervasive of that conflict. He could not, for example, ness, even the mystery be content to say that in this conflict philosophy had been playing tricks or spoken with lack of seriousness, because he had had the of producing his first book, and he knew that such experience not true of it. If he was to philosophize criticisms were again, a mat of that first book must be as continuous then the experience ter of investigation for him as the new insights he had come to. a major we see dramatized between the super Here difference sometimes similar of and Austin and deeply, ficially, thoughts to dismiss with is helped Austin easy conscience Wittgenstein. conflict with his own because results which the phi philosophical are often not to he task it takes be true may losophers original; he catches of them, at least at the moment them, that they are in some obvious way, or lack philosophical inattentive seriousness. the thinkers Wittgenstein in his the other hand, On confronts are Plato, St. William Investigations Augustine, James, and Frege, thinkers whom, whatever the early Russell, their faults, it will be to convict of lacking harder seriousness. somewhat philosophical or that either Austin much Not of his time Wittgenstein spends does other philosophers directly. Austin always concentrates confronting on with accumulation his of surprises, and on proceeding showing 956 at the heart indeed of the

Existentialism
us

and Analytical Philosophy

in and connections the obvious, but unnoticed, of ways, ways, our uses of words.6 Moreover, Sir Francis he shares with Bacon is often a matter the sense that past philosophy of empty, childish on to the that dote and of the past merely greatness prattling, stands in the way of present productive writ work. Wittgenstein's on the other hand, in is writing continuous of confrontation ing, not of other names I cited (the appear philosophy, philosophers in his book only once or twice each), but of that dimension of the no matter mind insists on philosophizing which how often the of philosophy have been refuted. Part I of the Investiga arguments tions (which is some four-fifths of the book, and just over 170 pages) are miniature consists of 690 numbered of which sections, most between that part of himself which main himself?or dialogues tains a firm grip on the world all men inter share?and nameless over and over, from every direction locutors who manifest and in or dissatisfactions or all moods, those temptations compulsions and out which drive ordinary men away from the everyday world to The force this mode of of composition depends philosophy. the interlocutors voice and comments upon whether questions are made with come from conviction, which and which passion as one seem one and attention, reads, which, always something or to wants feels the If of. their oneself say, power they do, then or dismissed. in any obvious way, be criticized If voices cannot, one were to in be described these voices word, the one that for me the experiences is the existentialist's best captures they suggest term "inauthentic," that new term of philosophical criticism directed our lives. I have said that for the Oxford "or against philosopher, mean more not and contexts" much "ordinary dinary language" con and than "non-philosophical language" "non-philosophical or contexts texts." In Wittgenstein's work, "ordinary" "everyday" to carry the force of "authentic" and examples are, I suggest, meant to in language. authentically examples responded

Ill
has looked into Wittgenstein's will Investigations the what is of the difficulties book about saying briefly appreciate tone and force. I want now to its particular and of conveying of its relation to existentialism and try the follow up my suggestion it with Kierkegaard's in parti of comparing experiment writing, in his cular the writing Unscientific Concluding Postscript. Anyone who 957

STANLEY CAVELL and Both Wittgenstein under illusion. Both ing or uncovering diagnosing In both, the cure requires
human existence.

see their worlds as labor Kierkegaard see their function as authors to be the of this illusion, and freeing us from it. that we be brought back to our ordinary

the illusion is that such a thing as Christendom For Kierkegaard a exists, that one can be a Christian simply by being born in Chris a Christian tian state, of Christian and parents, given by being name to suppose it is an illusion and nomenclature. Moreover, for no one, or almost no one?in that there are any Christians, now and faith re of the resignation cluding himself?is capable to follow Christ. For Wittgenstein is perfection the illusion quired or or its One of forms is the idea that the generality completeness. rests upon a foundation of our language of logic, or intelligibility is secured by essences or rules. It is as though he had asked him "How can logic show self, ten years after his Tractatus was written, us the real form of to and had "It can't." That answer, language?" it is not often to does not mean and sometimes useful, possible, a utterances from natural into But from form. put language logical this possibility follows in of the sort that philosophers, nothing the exam had For followed. young Wittgenstein, cluding thought not follow that one must in logical form put statements ple, it does in order to see their function understand their and, as it were, not it would as in And particular provide, intelligibility. philos a more exact set of statements, the because ophers have supposed, on the one has in notion of "more exact" depends particular goal cannot provide mind: it, once for all, for all goals. And if one logic an of ordinary then statements, says that logic provides analysis he must not go on to suppose that ordinary language needs analysis nor that there is some final and (or at least, that kind of analysis), nor that which toward ordinary analysis language longs, complete in general, form tells you more, than the unanalyzed the analyzed it tells you less. (In these form. In some ways, for certain purposes, is profoundly to the con respects Wittgenstein opposed important as of analysis. ) ception philosophy of our illusion, our illness, in the Con diagnosis Kierkegaard's is that we have lost the capacity Postscript, cluding Unscientific for inwardness, and therewith the capacity for subjectivity, for an in an Objective We live of Age, Christianity. Age Knowledge, our lives in favor of them. and we have stopped living knowing is that we have, our in because of part diagnosis Wittgenstein's 958

Existentialism

and Analytical Philosophy

fixed or forced ideas of the way things about language, illusions are. Kierkegaard not must and see how look will and be, they and our history; Wittgen finds us trying to escape our existence to escape the limits of human forms of lan stein finds us wishing we live in guage and forms of life. In Kierkegaard's descriptions, we our the universal in Wittgenstein's rather than in particularity; crave concrete. the instead of accepting generality existence. In both, the cure is for us to return to our everyday cure con on and It will be obvious that this emphasis diagnosis as the of the tinues the early image of the philosopher physician effort the characteristic soul, and it also aligns these writers with an effort as to un-mask its audience, its of modern world, thought true of Marx and Nietzsche and and Freud as it is of Kierkegaard or a few masks to And the effort un-mask Wittgenstein. requires tricks of its own. Traditional forms of criticism, of logical refutation are new do not arise Our preeminently, unavailing. problems are worse or than false, and falsehood; they through inconsistency one must do is to alter the terms are all too consistent. What they rests. The and ground upon which the whole argument problem are one has the is not whether the workers but why paid enough, one has been is not whether right to pay them at all. The problem means to is it become but what The baptized, baptized. problem man not man suffers, but as pun interprets his suffering why why ishment. The problem is not whether the life of pleasure is higher or lower than the life of one cannot feel but why knowledge, one and why is not whether desires to know. The problem pleasure or essences are before or universals only in things, but why things one has the idea that there are universals or essences. is more characteristic of the writing in the Nothing Philosophi cal Investigations and in the Unscientific than its shun Postscript on the lan of argument and the insistence ning of normal modes guage and life of ordinary men. But this itself is not a new turn in philosophical is a passage from a recent discussion writing. Here of the so-called Revival of in the Rennaisance: Learning In its simplest terms, this revolution consisted in a shift within the spectrum of the three primary liberal arts that were the nurture of all scholars, a shift from dialectic as the key discipline toward grammar and rhetoric. . . .The study of words and of style, the analysis of how a lan guage is put together and what it may be made to do, the examination of an author in relation to his audience and the whole purpose of his work? these became increasingly the preoccupations of scholars. The Revival of a shift of interest from thus meant [i.e., from Learning philosophy 959

STANLEY CAVELL philosophy

to literature,

in the style of Abelard

from abstract truth to

and Aquinas]
concrete,

to philology,
fact.7

from logic

personal

it seems clear to me, fits proce description, Wittgenstein's as well as it fits existentialism and his motives and a familiar to this one adds part of contemporary theology. When Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's recurrent use of humor, and obviously pointed and dialogue, the memory and paradox, aphorism, irony, parable effect of these writers take on an hallucinatory similarity. Readers of both of them have often found the cure they offer worse than the disease. Kierkegaard calls for the end of Christen dom. He imagines, in his Journal, that someone will object: If all men became Christians, men if all became celibate, ascetic, martyrs to the truth, and suffered the full fact of aloneness, the world would come to an end. To which he answers: "What a pity." No doubt that was itself meant asks, at one ironically. And Wittgenstein our its "Where does from, point: get investigation importance since it seems only to that that all is, interesting, destroy everything is great and important?" And he answers: "What we are destroying . . ." But that seems little consola is nothing but houses of cards. tion for the loss of philosophy. in both writers the cure seems no cure. All we are given And is the obvious, and then silence. Kierkegaard has some sport with the man who feels the need to make profound before discoveries he can find his salvation and know his true Kierke responsibilities. is that the only discovery that man needs is that gaard's suggestion And Wittgenstein he needs no new discovery. says, "If one tried never be in philosophy, it would to to advance theses possible That dures them, because everyone would agree to them." Yet they question and silence provide answers, and more both claim that obviousness over that else does, that is, not to their questions. nothing I go further, I feel I should speak for a sense of impa Before has every right to break out. "One thing you've said tience which that the similarity between is certainly true, namely, Kierkegaard so are is and Wittgenstein hallucinatory. They simply different, to deny it? Kierkegaard is important because he describes why try our lives and depicts salvation, whereas Wittgenstein speaks about and if about our lives, then about the commonest words, portions be more honest life. It would of our everyday simply to say that can refer either to a of propositions the term philosophy body to comprise knowledge of some sort, or else to a mode supposed is an example of the former of life, and that analytical philosophy 960

Existentialism
and existentialism in defense

and Analytical Philosophy

writes

an example of the latter. Moreover, Kierkegaard one of Christianity, saying over and over that his is that is that truth is subjectivity, inwardness, thought Christianity that the enemy of truth is scientific knowledge, and that objectivity, since we have chosen the latter we have lost our souls and are damned.8 Wittgenstein has nothing to say about such matters, and moreover thinks there is He with science. wrong nothing merely are not that philosophy's says that it is not philosophy, problems solved by science. Such a an over be advance position may posi tivism's us near servility to science, but it is still nowhere making servants of God."

It would not be or to argue the question of profitable, pleasant, the relative importance of our writers. remem it be should Though bered that when Wittgenstein leaves everything says "philosophy as it is," he seems to think that is in itself an important thing to and were al men, say?as not, perhaps, though just philosophers, in of to make And ways danger trying philosophy change things. it to? One does not want does one want to become it, for example, another of the words another merely ideology?in George Orwell, of "the are now for our smelly little orthodoxies which contending souls." If could keep from changing the philosophy ideologies out from under our lives, could world to let us grow into our help it as we go, that would be change and future, knowing enough, add that was said he important enough. And I would Kierkegaard or mattered at most to our lives. One may t/nimportant, accidentally earnest about anything, he was about that. is it true to say that is either a "philosophy body of or a mode of life"? At the of in knowledge beginning philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, the knowledge it provided, "sci going beyond was entific" knowledge, to make one supposed good, give one joy. With was found irrelevant such knowledge for true, Christianity, eternal happiness; the truth one needs is as easy, and at least as difficult, for a wise man as for a fool. Christendom has always been ambivalent about the merit we no of learning, until today longer know whether is or itself knowledge saving damning?perhaps each in turn. But further, it is one of and imagining Kierkegaard's Nietzsche's best discoveries?or rediscoveries?that it knowledge self exacts a mode of life. a is thinker" Kierkegaard's "objective well-known comic the not figure?like everyone Devil?though his humor. And Nietzsche, in what may appreciate characterizing Again, 961 was

think this justmore of his humor and irony; but I think that if he
in dead

STANLEY CAVELL the "ascetic ideal," asks, or re-asks in a new way: "Why to know? What does their concentration on, their faith in knowledge, do to them?" As man, the ideal of the knower, is heightened in Christian he will be the overthrow of spirituality, that he will Because until he his press Christianity. knowledge knows his own motives to knowledge, knows that they are ones of of fear and power over others disguised destructiveness, passionate as self-control, as disinter of hatred and possessiveness disguised And he will go on to know that the same is true of the estedness. as a Christian. motives then he will become of Perhaps capable the that will be knowledge joyful. It is true that does not entertain such questions. Wittgenstein And yet it is not clear what the effect will be of saying to philos answers must be answers and the old ophy: satisfying, philosophical are not more will not solve your problems. satisfying; knowledge For that can lead one to ask: What will solve them, what will be calls do men wish now we are back to the of silence which satisfying? And question we broke off a moment ago. in the Investigations, At one point says, "Let us Wittgenstein we feel a ask ourselves: to do be deep?9 joke why grammatical And he adds parenthetically, the depth of "That is what philosophy a of what he may have meant is." One example by grammatical A child I was taking for a walk saw the following: joke is perhaps a younger and fall, and she asked me, child stumble "Why did "He just lost his balance." The child the baby fall?" I answered, "Where did he lose it?" and began immediately replied, looking around in puzzlement. that the child, (That is the sort of question a year or so later, will herself find enormously funny, and she will ask it just for the fun. ) How are we to answer the child's question? in the way the child We may feel: the baby didn't lose something means or: when I say, 'lie lost different "lose" thinks, something it means when I say, "he lost his blanket." from what his balance," And we may feel that the child is not ready for certain explanations. we may then imagine that we That is doubtless right enough, but do possess the explanations, but for some reason cannot in fact hand them over to a child. But do we know how the baby "lost some from the way the child thinks? How shall we say thing" differently is? And do we know our meaning what the difference of 'lost some is the different from the child to attaches meaning thing" which we to How that do those words? ourselves? That meaning explain we may not be able to ourselves with such provide explanations 962 he

Existentialism
does not it shows

and Analytical Philosophy

show that we do not really know what we mean; what is not always, though it is that "knowing what we mean" sometimes for our meaning. of having is, a matter explanations in Sometimes we know a thing, but cannot express our knowledge we we do not know a sometimes what but explanations; thing, for example, lack cannot be supplied by explanations. (We may, need to come to see everything Our lack of explana differently.) tion to ourselves that our difference from the child also suggests we can or cannot is not a difference in the explanations give. The child will eventually learn what we mean by the phrase "lost his learn how we use it; balance," or perhaps we should say, she will that will happen when she also learns how we use forms like 'lost his way" and "lost his chance" and "lost his turn" and "lost his sense is says, "To imagine a form of language we And that life." could, accordingly, say to learn certain forms because she as yet those forms of language have a lacks the forms of life in which a we natural function. The extent to which understand use, have one another or ourselves is the same as the extent to which we share or understand forms of life, share and know, for example, it is to take turns, or take chances, or know that some what things we have lost we cannot sometimes look for but can nevertheless of humor." Wittgenstein a form of to imagine the child is not ready find or recover; share the sense of what is fun and what loss feels or like, and take comfort from the same things and take confidence in similar ways. That we do more or less share such forms offense rests upon insures that we will, and there nothing deeper; nothing or which is no foundation, the fact philosophical, logical explains our lives, and real the form of which that we do, which provides are distortions. What has to be accepted, Wittgenstein language, not is the same as saying that our lives is This of life. forms says, our lives of the as we lead them?in for Wittgenstein, particular, or it is that criticism What be says, suggests, ory?must accepted. in philosophical of our lives is not to be prosecuted theory, but in the confrontation of our lives with their own neces continued What what and life, rests on conventions. says that language, no I that is, suppose, they have necessity beyond human beings do. He does not mean, for example, that we all convene and decide or vote on what our human forms of might we will shall life be, choose what we shall find funny or whether we we loss comfort where continue and call these do. If finding we must call then also them natural. conventional, arrangements sities. He also he means 963

STANLEY CAVELL was he said of thought by Pascal when perhaps expressed It is from such an insight human beings, is our nature." "Custom of that Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard avoid explanations explicitly our lives and concentrate as on to them of are, they descriptions at given the alternatives themselves which present gether with ex moments. Or perhaps we should say: for them a philosophical a in takes the unlike form of planation explanations description, The
science.

In the Tractatus says, "The solution of the problem Wittgenstein and in the Investi of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem," . . the we are at is indeed that gations he says: ". clarity aiming means But the that this clarity. philosophical prob complete simply lems should completely Yet he calls these problems disappear." solved and he says that when "there are ... no (Investigations), . . . this itself is the answer' left (Tractatus). questions Putting these remarks together, is that the problems of life the implication and the problems of philosophy have the same form?Wittgenstein are solved would say they have the same "grammar": they only answers are arrived at when when there are they disappear; only no In the Investigations, this turns out to be more longer questions. seems to be; for here in of an answer it this than, simple form, the ways such an answer more dictates and displays explicitly to is in ways proceed philosophy investigating problems, leading to what he calls which means, representation," "perspicuous new facts, or the that instead of accumulating capturing roughly, essence or in definitions, of the world and perfecting completing we need to arrange our the facts we already know or language, can come to realize we know. merely by calling to mind something are also that these says perspicuous representations Wittgenstein "the way we look at things," and he then asks, "Is this aWelt The answer to that question is, I take it, not No. Not, anschauung'?" a or is not it because of Yes, way competing, special, perhaps, not No, because at success its But mark is that of things. looking the world seem?be?different.9 in Fear and I think of Kierkegaard's of description Trembling the man who can, as he puts it, "express the sublime in the pedes trian," something he takes as possible only through the possession with the feeling that this of faith. I would sympathize certainly is fanciful; and connection and Kierkegaard between Wittgenstein seems to me to throw into relief the kind of in which yet it writing not For mode will tell both of engage. just any composition they 964

Existentialism
us

and Analytical Philosophy

we cannot fail to know and yet remain enlightening; something us from taking of arguing will try to prevent just any way is said as a thesis or a result. Theses and results are things what and Wittgen but Kierkegaard that can be believed and accepted; of stein do not want and therewith, to be believed and accepted, an audience And not just any way of addressing course, dismissed. not will them as they are, leave them alone, but transformed. it are effects we have come to expect of art, and perhaps like Northrop is because that a literary theorist of such effects even of the art of literature?not merely, with Malraux, Frye says it is silent. Wittgenstein of the visual arts?that says that his Philo leave These is a work of "grammar," and Kierkegaard Investigations sophical a "Mimic-Pathetic-Dialectic and calls his Postscript Composition," it simply, To un he first thought of entitling Problems." "Logical in these descriptions would be to understand derstand the works question. little, if at all, about his Kierkegaard speaks in his early works or more and more about but he tells methods, literary philosophical as his books tumble his methods and perhaps by into the world, the time of the Unscientific in the posthumous and Postscript, surely Point of View as an Author, he says rather too much of My Work about them. His is claim in the Postscript principle methodological that he is forced to use what he calls "indirect communication"? and his "forced to" means close to "logically forced to," something as if he were to say that what he wishes to communicate cannot be communicated communication would be ap any other way. Direct or for scientific beliefs, results, propriate transmitting presenting etc. It is inappropriate, indeed impossible, for something else. For what else? One understands the sort of thing Kierkegaard has in mind when he says, "This can be communicated in no other way." It points to the fact that makes or necessary, art itself possible, but its application to not is clear, composition Kierkegaard's perfectly and a bit of analysis may be in order. What would to say, it mean "Poetry communicates indirectly" or 'What can communicated be in no other way"? says poetry seems more fundamental, since we could, it (The former question it says can be communicated seems, also say of science that what no other a poem Let us take, for of Wallace way.) example, in which Stevens' he says, "Death is the mother of beauty." Sup that line and asks pose someone feels he doesn't really understand I may try to for its meaning. as these: What help by such remarks 965

STANLEY CAVELL a of death, of real and knowledge no there be would of life, and no loss, change knowledge from the truth; and art art; we have art that we may not perish itself is a kind of death, but in the service of the only life there is. What to say that Stevens means what I say he means does it mean I not, if my is accurate, communicated by that line? Have reading his it in communicated if you like. another way, meaning??though one feels: Yes and No. That that it itself Perhaps suggests feeling is not obvious that Stevens' line has communicated something can be communicated one still which in no other way. Perhaps to say: You haven't communicated wishes the very meaning of that not it said But that I the line line, wrong, exactly. suggests that got that what some I said it meant wasn't exactly right. No doubt is no lost the line is explained; is when but doubt something thing if the explanation is right, especially if it is exactly right. gained, But to direct com is lost in reverting says everything Kierkegaard so our must sort not the he had in mind. be munication, example This is also suggested in asking which of these communications? to call "direct" and Stevens' line or my reading of it?one wants which "indirect." The answer seems to be: In a sense the original line is more direct, but in another sense the of the line explanation is more direct. let us take a different Then of his example. At the beginning a means it Stevens to who knows what poem, say imagines lady is the mother that death of beauty, and he pictures her, late one in the center of his mortal and he finds heaven; Sunday morning, that her thoughts wander, that she feels a pang of regret and yearn the old promise. Or rather, what he finds is ing for the old heaven, that the is that without final and she feels the dark Encroachment of that old catastrophe,
As a calm darkens among water-lights.

line means

If someone fails to understand these lines, I may try to help; but I cannot do what I did with the former line. I may say that "old refers to the failed promise of but I can catastrophe" redemption, not to any of the he attaches explain any special weight particular nor show in the I cannot explain the words, complexities thought. some scene and mood lines at all. I may try to describe particular and gesture which the touch those lines have captures particular to lead you to the line itself. Then for me, hoping again, I may 966

Existentialism

and Analytical Philosophy

to leave them as touchstones to say be unwilling anything, wanting of intimacy. In that case, I will perhaps say or feel: The thought can be no other way. And here I mean that absolutely in expressed ?no "in a sense" about it. But just for this reason the question or loses all sig whether the lines communicate indirectly directly no alternative way of communicat is nificance here?there simply case has in ing it. So this again cannot be the sort of Kierkegaard
mind.

out a conflict between the characteriza bring examples and "can be commu tions, "must be communicated indirectly" there is some alternative nicated no other way."10 It is only when sense to say that a that it makes way of communicating thought in a given instance, communicated the thought has been, directly or in which there flatly is no other way thought indirectly. Where can be communicated, of it can be then the unique expression called neither direct nor indirect; the contrast no longer applies. mean commu So what can Kierkegaard by saying both that his to it?11 Does is indirect and that there is no alternative nication one of these characterizations? or need, What he really mean, only seen in the I this: be leads him to his joint characterization can, think, in familiar to express seem easily to be expressed he wishes thoughts are al words?the words, say, of the Sermon on the Mount; people to and the words themselves know what ways using supposing they mean. finds that they do not know, or will not But Kierkegaard know, what the words really mean. They lose, or cover, their mean are ) forms of life they spoken apart from the (Christian ing when Yet they are the same words, and which give them their meaning. no others will do for the to is be expressed. It because the thoughts can be uttered and meant in conflicting ways words that Kierke between the contrast direct and indirect com gaard maintains one it is because munication; way of saying them gives the only that he says only one form of com real, the Christian meaning munication is possible. a con This, then, is a very particular literary problem, problem a very not one, as in the situation of cerning particular language, in which from Stevens' poem, there are alternative first example a one of which can be said to con for expressing vehicles thought, as in it the other the second example, nor, vey indirectly; directly, a situation in which there is no alternative vehicle of expression it can be conveyed for the thought and therefore no way in which or It is one in which, while there (directly differently indirectly). These 967

STANLEY CAVELL vehicle of expression, it can there are two thoughts and moreover are the thoughts mutually incompatible, (Which thought is expressed by the one vehicle depends, defeating. as it were, on the direction or it is in which outward travelling, are of such vehicles these: inward.) Examples Truth Truth is subjectivity is appropriation is inwardness Christianity Faith is greater than knowledge The mark of faith is certainty The mark of faith is uncertainty Faith lies in the grasp of the ordinary Christianity demands that you: Die
Become

is only express,

one

to the world
a witness to the truth

Love Deny And

thy neighbor your mother

and thine enemy and father

so on, the content of the Christian This message. through a contain is the words which its truth of such form that message that very truth. And Kierke defeats may be said in a way which sees modern man as fated to say them the wrong way. gaard such words If one way of saying and hearing and understanding is to be called direct and the other indirect, then it must still be is not the same these modes made clear that the relation between as in our case of the poem because (first example), paraphrasing is meant there the paraphrase to, and ("direct communication") cases it does, open us to the poem com in successful ("indirect here whereas the direct in the blocks munication"), expression direct. In using such words directly the relation between what one to be heard and understood there is in those words says and what on the context is ironic, and, depending and the consequences, comic or tragic. If you take (say) Christ's parable of the sower and the seed as an unvarnished heard tale, it is utterly trivial, pointless; it teaches the reception and understood, of the word of salvation. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Kierkegaard, bent with the distance between Christendom what says and what knowing tries to unstop its ears, to awaken the Christian it understands, by the irony, the comedy and the tragedy of his is the specific for words and all the irony, which deeds which have the opposite of their intended effect, which mask seem to reveal, or were meant to what they produce what they producing existence.12 for him Above
avoid.

For Wittgenstein, 968

the distance

between

what

is said and what

Existentialism
is meant is not

and Analytical Philosophy

inoculated is not the Christian ironic.13 His audience reverse are the and of the his dialogues rather against Christianity; not found their lives, because Socratic. Socrates' interlocutors have to lost their examine them. have failed have Wittgenstein's they or too in he the wrong way. What lives through thinking much, seems to uncover is not that someone's words mean the opposite the implications of what he says or that someone fails to recognize of what he says. What he finds, rather, is that someone means from what he thought he very specific, something only different mean at all just when he or else means meant, nothing thought his was clearest and someone has become He finds that ing deepest. or the the world obsessed with "pictures" of the way he imagines a to be communicating mind must be; or supposes himself piece of in fact no one could fail to know what he says information when (hence no one could be informed by it). Such a person?any per son at such a moment?is lost not in parable but in fact; he has lost not the but their surface, their ordinariness? depth of his words, not their power to save but their power to record; he is out of touch not with his individual existence but with his common human na ture. Which of these is the greater loss it is less important perhaps to decide than to discern the necessities of each. as has been said, is that these Wittgenstein's general diagnosis, are the eventualities in which one is when come, philosophizing, led to speak as if beyond the limits of human as it were, language, at it. Therefore, what he does is to looking back bring words back a difficult to their uses. That this is to get to everyday thing people do says something about the difficulty of about philosophizing?and the difficulty of not philosophizing. That a call for the return to the own ironies, hints, everyday requires its jokes, parables and silences, about what this return requires?not an says something itinerary new information to the through goal of theory, but through re newed looking and seeing to the point of knowing where you are. If I do not say that Wittgenstein's is a seculariza Investigations of Kierkegaard's that is partly because other of Postscript, own be also called secularizations of may writings Kierkegaard's his religious works, and partly because the idea of secularization is all but useless; not just because it is so unclear, but because it once at less between writers these than details of suggests intimacy more than the different comparison will reveal, and also intimacy details of each and within writer will tolerate. When shape weight finds the modern (in particular Hegel) Kierkegaard philosopher 969 tion

STANLEY CAVELL to God by that he can transverse the infinite distance supposing a very and he that remarks erecting "philosophy long system, high rests not upon a mistaken but upon a comic pre presupposition, criti One could almost expect to find that particular supposition." cism numbered For when Witt in the Investigations. separately of to finds philosophers genstein explain the workings attempting the mind which to about mechanisms by appealing physiological inner and outer rather than to the noticeable they know nothing, contexts in which them the mind takes the forms which puzzled in the first place are these the forms which (and physiological or when he finds a mechanisms will have to explain), philosopher his to a sensation by concentrating that he is pointing supposing on it, or finds him attention the "evidence" for "hypothesis" citing "similar" to "our own," or finds that other people "have" feelings to locate the essence him attempting of a phenomenon (say of or or or intention, belief, away by stripping meaning, language) its essence, he does all the characteristics could comprise which not say of them that they are though greater making mistakes?as attention and care could have gained them success. The success of a needle will someone trying to press his camel through the eye of care to the not come with and his addressing attention greater I have been saying in somewhat summarize what the the and take way: seriously Wittgenstein Kierkegaard following is to be fact that we begin our lives as children; what we need as we a to take shown grow, something steps; and path, and helped at one stage does not is lost. What is gained and something helps serves as an at one stage is not explanation help at another; what not it In is another. serviceable?we could say, intelligible?at we have remain answerable the grown-up problems philosophy, or definitions.14 not through explanation And only through growth, or as fraudulent themselves useless many explana grown-ups give we must at tions as they give children. What hope for is not that some stage we will possess all explanations, but that at some stage to discover what we we will need none. And the task remains need. Wittgenstein (for impose a requirement puts it this way: We or or fails to satisfy of certainty, finality) which perfection, example, our real need. could also have said that, as he also Kierkegaard we impose such for just that upon ourselves requirements suggests on. that reason, to avoid seeing what our lives really depend enterprise. I might

970

Existentialism
Before it was

and Analytical Philosophy

we owe it to ourselves real to ask of what stopping, find the world to say that Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein to free us of them. Kierkegaard and write suffering from illusions, an illusion only relatively late in his authorship, of such speaks so to the after he has written stages on life's way. speak, through, and an individual of communication, Each stage has its own mode serve in another. which in one stage cannot use the explanations see the world as un does From what existential stage Kierkegaard he from none at all. In such writing der an illusion? I suggest, world the the has become thinker, objective Hegelian exactly he so despises. His description rests, to use his historical-monger on a comic The notion of illusion presupposition. precise phrase, seen. But if what a is is is meant to there be that suggests reality use an illusion held in his existence, then the reality by that individual one it contrasts must be in his with which held by that individual own existence. And that reality cannot, on Kierkegaard's teaching, be known or seen in the way his use of "illusion" suggests. can existence We might be de say that no human properly or scribed as under an illusion; for illusions are inevitable, they in ways the human modes of existence do not. The notion vanish, in their different worlds of illusion suggests that different existences same can be at the different (for example, person compared stages) we should say of the child who cannot in ways be. they Similarly, looked for the baby's lost balance, not that she misunderstood what it in the only way she could, I said to her, but that she understood in her stage. to free the that he wrote Nevertheless, saying of Kierkegaard It is a more useful individual of illusion repays investigation. thing as one sometimes to say than, for example, that he is a hears, or to say that he is an individualist, or to say that he Romantic, as a Christian. writes The first, if true, would be tragic, since a of life is, in Kierkegaard's view, the other principal to other miss the plain facts of than way (the way "objectivity") a Christian existence. The second would be ironic, because in the are sense that he means no there individuals "individual," any more a The last is unknowable, than there are Christians. for whether man is a Christian is a matter to God, and that of his relationship is an essential secret. characterizations of his work has, I be One of Wittgenstein's aim is to show the fly his lieve, been fairly widely quoted?that the way out of the fly bottle. But he does not announce this as his romantic view

971

STANLEY CAVELL a result or an intention. is a The context aim?communicating in its entirely, consists of the opening question, paragraph which, "To "What is your aim in philosophy?" and the closing answer, show the fly . . . etc." That response is made for that question. What kind of answer can that question have? I don't suggest that mean answer not does the he gives, only that the Wittgenstein answer is not to be taken as that he knows beforehand, suggesting are just and once for all, that all questions asked by philosophy so much can see them, before and that he investigation, buzzing, to be the product of illusion. What is the aim of To re philosophy? to the particular answers. to and asked, spond question get satisfying And satisfaction is not had, and is not done, once for all. philosophy

References 1. This to the and should less faithful seem, seem, may it is to is re of Heidegger than to which this paper Kierkegaard's, it not at true Before is stricted. that all of however, concluding, Heideg to consider the have (1) While ger, one would Heideg points: following the is the most is not of contemporary he existentialists, ger important characterization so the the characterization extent (or to "existentialist." to the extent that still be true of him may is something there worth as) noticing typically ex of Being the beginning and Time, Heidegger that of the difficulties claims of his writing, and that have So to his been necessitated of there our is no a modification writing: the radical by characterization existing way of

work

purest; he is

(2) At his awareness presses its roughness and unfamiliarity of his point of view. novelty would remain true fully he as the (for faithful insists would the other

writing
It way and ence; is

(writing philosophy)
that

in which what he says can be told.

(3)

Kierkegaard knowledge on nor,

on the in a of existential knowledge possibility to leave science is not, He that is, willing deny. exist human fixed of authentic (or one) enemy some he alternative would hand, given regard

as a fixed or the irrational) to route example, feeling to the with this position But, former, respect requires means a new mode to discover which of philosophical him knowledge, that he asserts that it is not obvious denies; and, exactly what Kierkegaard or it would to say of Nietzsche to the latter, be equally wrong with respect or irra I take to be popularly supposed?that feeling Kierkegaard?as are their existences. to our intellectualized alternatives hoped-for tionality to knowledge existence. such 2. In What View this account Is." I have This University particular, in "On W.V.O. Quine's presentation a is reprinted in his From Point of Logical which the relevant includes bib Press, 1953), to the classical references of Frege and papers followed

There (Harvard in

paper

liography, Russell.

972

Existentialism
3. A. J. Ayer's Language, of Truth the and Logic

and Analytical Philosophy

remains He the best-known, has recently and edited (Posi one's the a

best, popularization convenient and useful tivism, knowledge 4. The or This Free of

positivist selection of

which Press, 1959), to his early the view

position. the original weakens any

writings positivist excuse for confining

book. address "Moore to philosophy and are taken,

adapted,

exemplifications from paper is

I gave of Moore's Norman Malcolm's in a Inc., small

reprinted

collection which

Language liography plete which The oirs 5. These most

(Prentice-Hall, of its topic. No failed extended

1964),

Language." Ordinary entitled of essays Ordinary a serviceable bib contains

would be com influence of Moore's explanation to describe the force of his personality. and originality account in Two Mem I know of is given J. M. Keynes 1949).

(Hart-Davies, questions 2nd is series),

occur

in Austin's

"Other

Minds,"

reprinted

in his

Philo

sophical Papers
1953, 6. This

(Oxford, 1961)
a collection true

and in Logic
edited on Excuses

and Language
(described with and and

(Oxford,

of papers

by A. Flew. exempli

preeminently

of his work

fied in his paper of that title, reprinted in Philosophical Papers)

his vard posthumously University published Press, 1962). lectures published to this permanent The Christian How to Do lectures, Things It is not true of his Sense (The that Clarendon the Words Sensibilia,

and in
Har ( also

posthumously not think, more 7. E. likely

unrelated to remain Harbison,

fact,

former

contributions Scholar in

I and, 1962), Press, are two investigations to the of philosophy. subject the Age of the Reformation

Harris

(New York, 1956), pp. 34-35.

8. were not wish to be taken as that Nietzsche suggesting in their rejection of scientific unequivocal knowledge. in its it is unobjectionable. One that, suggest place, not stay in its then be that it just will But would place. science at least, as unclear as are for me remain, they I do I have lifted this Kierkegaard Sometimes they it trouble about their views about and

important. and Mod Philosophy

9.

out of a paper of mine, "Esthetics paragraph ern soon to appear in a volume is which entitled Philosophy," to be in America, in and Unwin published by Allen England. is the Rogers is not chief Albritton a at which of the point reading revision forced and expansion. original I am of

10. This by 11. This

this

grateful direct

paper to him. in rela the

a verbal matter merely concerning critics about say similar Literary things tion to the words to which purport paraphrase at greater in the esthetics paper length problem direct. reason for Jesus gives not understand") at any ("Lest speaking seems time in parables

the words

and

and their metaphors I have them. treated cited in note 9.

12. The

and hear, un-Christian should doubtless be

different, should they

("That hearing they may seems not to say opposite, be converted, and their sins of these differences that the will audi

A consideration them"). forgiven at least these an to give have facts

accounting:

973

STANLEY CAVELL
ence of the one is the that of with and new Christian, of the with while speakers that of the other is the and lost

Christian; 13. The

and

the powers irony the

differ

as heaven

earth.

category existentialism that ethical

rhetoric not that say case

prevents

philosophy's philosophy that science one of

in comparing relevance poignant Both of say positivist phase analytical philosophy. utterances must be both say that religious subjective; an utterance it is from both say that genuine; being to exhort to the moral business life; both say anyone re-emerges provides provides means about no objective empirical of knowledge of what opposite or and both knowledge; in each And the world. the other means, or has

them

objective the opposite it and draws

opposite 14. I do or not

feelings want this

conclusions. all What real, stable I am answers emphasiz

explanations

that Wittgenstein bars imply or even definitions from philosophy. I earlier of

to

ing is that all these traditional modes

perspective. Wittgensteinian and form of descriptions, in his work. are more no To to can say expect accept has spoke of

of conclusion will

look different in

that we

the taking answers have the peculiar form philosophical to grow is meant to emphasize that we need explanations and solutions questions in traditional and answers terms?any as given. of all

longer than we

answers

philosophical itself become but it

What
phases

has happened
problem" analytical

is that the fact that something

philosophy, problematic. is equally true

is an "outstanding
This of is true existentialism.

philosophical of

974