Originally Posted by Fuuma
Better Wittgenstein than Strauss....
Not to change the direction of the thread, but though I was initially rather hesitant about old Wittgey, reading closely the "Philosophical Investigations" was really rewarding, especially in conjunction with close readings of Bourdieu. They sort of supplement and support each other, in my opinion; Wittgenstein sort of sets up why and how habitus might work on a linguistic level. Of course, I don't really go for "comparative" readings... but just to say that I found the experience rewarding and there are many elements of the PI that I still use in my own work (passages/sections 65-70, for example)
Originally Posted by Manton
W is terrible. I don't see how anyone can prefer that to Strauss. But Strauss remains a tiny minority taste and always will.
I don't know how any BODY of work can be "terrible." I mean, if you find the Tractatus awful, okay. But, the whole body of work? Sometimes you're a catty queen, mantonicles.
Overall, though, it would be hard to compare Strauss and Wittgenstein, in terms of the direction of their work. Wittg was opposed to any real engagement in the real world; he was a scared, antisocial ghey who never really was happy with himself, and stayed in the world of ideas where his he could transcendentalize himself out of a physical body and towards some sort of linguistic perfection. Strauss, rather, was quite engaged. It was my fault for bringing up both names, but only to show that departments and faculty, and the ideas/levels of engagement they express, change rather quickly. Nevertheless, like him or not, Wittg is probably in the grand scheme of things going to be responsible for the most important contributions to philosophy in the 20th century. I doubt it will be Foucault, Derrida, or any of the "fashionable" ones...