Wittgenstein on Forms of Life

82 Pages·2022·0.809 MB·English

by  Anna Boncompagni

B
o
The question of what Wittgenstein meant by “forms of life” n
c
has attracted a great deal of attention in the literature, yet it o
m
is an expression that Wittgenstein himself employs on only
p
a
a relatively small number of occasions, and that he does g
n
not explicitly define. This Element gives a description of this i
concept that also explains Wittgenstein’s reluctance to say The philosophy of
much about it. A short historical introduction examines the
Ludwig Wittgenstein
origins and uses of the term in Wittgenstein’s time. The Element
then presents a survey of Wittgenstein’s employment of it, and
an overview of the literature. Finally, it offers a methodological
reading of this notion, interpreting it as a conceptual tool in
Wittgenstein’s wider inquiries into the workings of our language.
W Wittgenstein on
it
t
g
e
n
s
te Forms of Life
in
o
n
F
o
r
m
s
o
f L
ife
about the Series Series Editor
This series provides concise and David G. Stern
structured introductions to all the central University of Iowa
topics in the philosophy of Ludwig Anna Boncompagni
Wittgenstein. The Elements are written
by distinguished senior scholars and
bright junior scholars with relevant sserP
y
expertise, producing balanced and tisre
comprehensive coverage of the full range vin
U
of Wittgenstein’s thought. e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
1
5
6
4
9
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
Cover image: Adapted from a portrait of the Austrian .01
philosopher Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (1889–1951) /gro
by Moritz Nähr, 1930 (IanDagnall Computing / Alamy .io
d
Stock Photo). //:sp IISSSSNN 22663322--77111024 ((opnrilnint)e)
tth
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
1
5
6
4
9
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
ElementsinthePhilosophyofLudwigWittgenstein
editedby
DavidG.Stern
UniversityofIowa
WITTGENSTEIN ON
FORMS OF LIFE
Anna Boncompagni
University of California, Irvine
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
1
5
6
4
9
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
ShaftesburyRoad,CambridgeCB28EA,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
103PenangRoad,#05-06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore238467
CambridgeUniversityPressispartofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment,
adepartmentoftheUniversityofCambridge.
WesharetheUniversity’smissiontocontributetosocietythroughthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108931151
DOI:10.1017/9781108946513
©AnnaBoncompagni2022
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisions
ofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytake
placewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment.
Firstpublished2022
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-108-93115-1Paperback
ISSN2632-7112(online)
sse ISSN2632-7104(print)
rP
y CambridgeUniversityPress&Assessmenthasnoresponsibilityforthepersistence
tisre oraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhis
vin publicationanddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwill
U
e remain,accurateorappropriate.
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
1
5
6
4
9
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Wittgenstein on Forms of Life
ElementsinthePhilosophyofLudwigWittgenstein
DOI:10.1017/9781108946513
Firstpublishedonline:September2022
AnnaBoncompagni
UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine
Authorforcorrespondence:AnnaBoncompagni,[email protected]
Abstract:ThequestionofwhatWittgensteinmeantby“formsoflife”
hasattractedagreatdealofattentionintheliterature,yetitisan
expressionthatWittgensteinhimselfemploysononlyarelativelysmall
numberofoccasions,andthathedoesnotexplicitlydefine.This
Elementgivesadescriptionofthisconceptthatalsoexplains
Wittgenstein’sreluctancetosaymuchaboutit.Ashorthistorical
introductionexaminestheoriginsandusesofthetermin
Wittgenstein’stime.TheElementthenpresentsasurveyof
Wittgenstein’semploymentofit,andanoverviewoftheliterature.
Finally,itoffersamethodologicalreadingofthisnotion,interpretingit
asaconceptualtoolinWittgenstein’swiderinquiriesintotheworkings
ofourlanguage.
Keywords:Wittgenstein,formsoflife,language,languagegames,practices
©AnnaBoncompagni2022
ISBNs:9781108931151(PB),9781108946513(OC)
sse ISSNs:2632-7112(online),2632-7104(print)
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
1
5
6
4
9
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 FormsofLifeinWittgenstein’sWork 10
3 InterpretationsofFormsofLife 32
4 Conclusion:TheSignificanceofFormsofLife 52
References 65
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
1
5
6
4
9
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
WittgensteinonFormsofLife 1
1Introduction
1.1Overview
ThequestionofwhatLudwigWittgensteinmeantby“formoflife”or“formsof
life”(Lebensform,Lebensformen)hasattractedagreatdealofattention,althoughit
is an expression that Wittgenstein himself employed only on a relatively small
number of occasions. Since it seems to be at the core of Wittgenstein’s later
philosophy,onemightwonderwhyhedidnotfocusmoreexplicitlyonitsmeaning
andsignificance.ThisElementaimstoofferaclarificationofthisnotionthatalso
explainsWittgenstein’sreluctancetobemoreexplicitandstraightforwardaboutit.
TheElementisstructuredintofourparts:anintroduction,twomainsections,
and a conclusion. In the introduction, I investigate the meaning(s) that
LebensformhadatWittgenstein’stime.Thisinvestigationwillprovideatleast
apartialanswertothequestionposited.Indeed,thetermwasrathercommonat
Wittgenstein’s time, so much so that he probably did not think its meaning
neededtobeexplicitlyaddressed.Itwasusedbothinthenaturalsciencesandin
philosophy, and it was used both to point to natural factors and features of
certain species, among them the human species, and to highlight broadly
cultural, social, and aesthetic elements that characterize and differentiate the
various ways in which human beings organize and live their lives with each
other. The concept of Lebensform was therefore not an “invention” of
Wittgenstein but rather an idea that was already present in his cultural milieu
andthatheputtouseforhisspecificpurposes.
Toillustratesuchpurposes,aftertheintroduction,Section2willfocusonthe
sse occasions on which Wittgenstein mentioned forms of life in his writings and
rP y lectures. Since the term appears only five times in the Philosophical
tisre Investigations(includingbothparts1and2)1andafewtimesinotherwritings
v
in
U andlectures,thetaskofexaminingtheseoccurrencesindetailandtracingthem
e
gd backtotheiroriginalformulationsinWittgenstein’smanuscriptsisnotimpos-
irb
ma sible.TheanalysisofthecontextsinwhichLebensformorLebensformenappear
C
y
b
e
n
ilno 1 Throughoutthiswork,wheneverIrefertotheInvestigationsingeneral(withoutusingabbrevi-
d
eh ations),Iwillbereferringtothewholeworkasitwastraditionallyknown,hencebothpart1and
silb part2.Iwill,however,usetheabbreviationsPIandPPF,followingtheuseintroducedbythe
u
P fourtheditionofthebook(2009),whenreferringonlytopart1oronlytopart2,respectively,and
3
15 whenquotingfromorreferringtospecificremarks.InreferencestoPPF,Iwillalsoaddthe
6
49 sectionandpagereferencetothe“old”PIII(fromthethirdeditionoftheInvestigations)insquare
8
01 brackets.ForreferencestoCultureandValue,Iwillusethe1998edition,butaddthereferenceto
187 the 1980 edition in square brackets. For the abbreviations of Wittgenstein’s works, see the
9/7 bibliography. When referring to Wittgenstein’s manuscripts and typescripts in the Nachlass,
1
01 I use the standard classification (von Wright 1993) and quote from the Bergen Electronic
.01 Edition (BEE). Translations from the Nachlass, unless otherwise specified, are mine (often
/gro fromBoncompagni2015,whereIbenefitedfromtheadviceofJoachimSchulte).
.io
d
//:sp
tth
2 ThePhilosophyofLudwigWittgenstein
willindeedhelpusunderstandthereasonsmotivatingWittgenstein’schoiceof
this expression, what he connected it with, and what he was interested in
highlighting. The variations that some passages went through between their
originalformulationandlaterversionsalsoconstitutealensthroughwhichto
examine the development of Wittgenstein’s approach to certain issues. One
pointthat willbeaddressedistheearliestoccurrence oftheterminhiswork,
dating back to 1936: he first introduced Lebensform as a replacement for the
word “culture.” This change might suggest that there was something in “cul-
ture” that didnotcapture whathe wanted toemphasize whenhe talked about
forms of life. I will argue that unlike “forms of life,” “culture” risks not
capturing the practical, everyday, and ordinary aspects of the things we do
when we use words. Another point that will emerge is Wittgenstein’s views
abouttheEnglish translation ofLebensform,which, atleast atsomepoint, he
thought should be “way of living.” This translation, perhaps surprisingly,
eliminatesanytalkofa“form”andinsteademphasizestheactivities,practices,
and ways of doing in which our language games are embedded, which he
elsewherereferredtoas“thewholehurlyburly”oflife.
After this examination of Wittgenstein’s remarks, in Section 3, the vast
literatureonWittgenstein’snotionofformsoflifewill beaddressed.Itmight
be surprising that so much has been written on a notion that he seldom
employed, butI believe that theemphasis on it bymany commentators is not
misplaced.Itwillbefascinatingtoseewithwhatpurposescommentatorsstress
therelevanceofformsoflifeinWittgenstein;infact,interpretationsdivergeand
point in different, sometimes opposing directions. To systematize the debate
sse andaddsomeclaritytoit,Iwillidentifysomeofthemostdiscussedissuesand
rP y someofthemostrelevantreadingsthathavebeenoffered.Somecommentators,
tisre for instance, claim that Wittgenstein stresses the existence of basically one
v
in
U human form of life, while others emphasize his remarks about the different
e
g
dirb ways in which human beings, in their specific cultures and social settings,
m
a developtheirownwaysofliving.Relatedly,someconnectthehumanformof
C
y
b e life to language in general, and some seem interested in considering the
n
iln practices in which singular language games are embedded. Some interpreters
o
d
eh offer a transcendental reading in which forms of life are to some extent the
silbu conditionsofpossibilityformeaningandlanguage.Othersareinclinedtoward
P
3
1 a naturalistic account that privileges biological and evolutionary aspects. The
5
6
4
9 sectionincludesearlyinterpretations,suchasthoseproposedbyJ.F.M.Hunter,
8
0
11 Max Black, and Nicholas Gier; the influential work of Stanley Cavell, who
8
7
9
/7 distinguishedbetweenavertical(biological)andahorizontal(cultural)dimen-
1
0
1.0 sionoftheconcept;andthetranscendentalreadingsproposedby,amongothers,
1
/gro Bernard Williams and Jonathan Lear. It also reviews more recent debates
.io
d
//:sp
tth
WittgensteinonFormsofLife 3
concerning such matters as whether Wittgenstein’s interest in the plurality of
forms of life entails a form of relativism, whether he should be considered
aconservativethinker,andwhetherhisreferencetohumanpracticesmakeshim
anempiricistand/oranaturalist.
Inthefourthandconcludingsection,afterrecappingthemostrelevantinsights
gainedfromtheformerexaminationsandtryingtomapthesurveyofinterpret-
ations onto Wittgenstein’s remarks, I develop my own take on this notion. To
anticipate,Iarguethattheconceptofformsoflifefunctionsasamethodological
reminderforWittgenstein.Wittgensteinwasnotprovidinganempiricalexplan-
ation of what a form of life is. Instead, he was engaged in a grammatical
investigation, highlighting the connections between speaking a language and
beingtheparticularanimalsthatweare,belongingtocommunitiesthatareheld
together by habit, education, norms, culture, and science. This explains
Wittgenstein’s seeming reluctance to say more about forms of life: his interest
lay not in explaining forms of life in themselves but in making use of this
conceptual tool in his wider inquiries into the workings of our language. Far
fromdiminishingthesignificanceofthisnotion, amethodologicalreadingwill
highlightitscentralityinWittgenstein’soverallproject.
1.2“Lebensformen”beforeWittgenstein
Two sources are particularly helpful for grasping the way in which the term
Lebensform was used before Wittgenstein and at his time and hence the
meaning or meanings with which he was likely familiar. One source is
HelmreichandRoosth’s(2010)“keyword”accountoftheterm“life-form”,in
sse whichtheyexaminehowthistermhasbeenemployedinnaturalphilosophyand
rP
ytisrev bGieorlmogaynoavseLretbheenslafostrmtw. oThheunsdecreodndyesaorusr,cebeigsinthneingHiwstiothrisictsheaspWpeöarrtaenrcbeucihn
in
U
e derPhilosophie(Ritter,GründerandGabriel2007).Thesetwosourcesconsider
g
d
irb partly differing fields of research, with the former occasionally mentioning
m
aC philosophybutcertainlynotfocusingonitandthelatterinsteadorientedtoward
y
b
e philosophy.Combiningthemisthereforeparticularlyuseful.
n
iln
o HelmreichandRoosthnotethataccordingtotheDeutscheWörterbuch,theterm
d
ehsilb Lebensformen first appeared in 1838 in the Jenaer Literatur-Zeitung with the
uP meaningof“thephysicalpropertiesofheavenlybodiesandthelifeformspossible
3
15 upon them” (2010: 31). In approximately the same period, a slightly different
6
4
9
8 meaningisdetectableinaworkbyKarlFriedrichBurdachonphysiologyinwhich
0
1
1
87 theemphasisisnotontheexternalenvironmentbutontheinnerlifeforcesofan
9
/71 organism:life-formsaredescribedhereas“self-organizingaccordingtoaninner
0
1
.01 principle” (Helmreich and Roosth 2010: 31; Burdach 1838). Both ideas, at that
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
4 ThePhilosophyofLudwigWittgenstein
time,servedtogroundthepossibilityofconstructingnewclassificatoryschemes,
incontrastwiththeprevalentviewexemplifiedbyLinnaeus’statictaxonomy.This
brings to mind Goethe’s work on the morphology of plants, a work that
WittgensteinknewverywellandthatwasinturninspiredbyKant’sCritiqueof
Judgment(moreonGoetheandKantsoon).Thesameinspirationwasattheorigins
of Johannes Müller’s work. Müller, a physiologist and anatomist, teacher of
Hermann von Helmholtz, Ernst Haeckel, and Louis Agassiz, between 1834 and
1840publishedapiecetitled(inHelmreich&Roosth’stranslation)“Concluding
remarks on the variations of development in animal and human life forms on
Earth”(Müller1840).
AnothersetofthinkerswhousethetermLebensform,includingthephiloso-
pherWilhelmvonHumboldtandhisyoungerbrother,thenaturalistAlexander
von Humboldt, focused on the relationship between the organism and its
environment and the role of habits and custom (Helmreich and Roosth 2010:
33).Recognizingtheircontributionrequiresbackdatingthefirstoccurrencesof
thetermwithrespecttotheDeutscheWörterbuch.WilhelmvonHumboldtin
facttalksofLebensformasearlyas1824,treatingitasasynonymofcustomor
culture. His brother Alexander generalizes this notion to the organic world,
including plants. From Helmreich and Roosth’s article, we also learn that
AlexandervonHumboldtinfluencedCharlesDarwinandthatDarwin’sgrand-
father,ErasmusDarwin,hadalreadyusedtheterm“formoflife”(inEnglish)at
theendoftheeighteenthandbeginningofthenineteenthcentury.
ThelegacyofthetwovonHumboldtsextendstoErnstHaeckel’sverypopular
works, including his Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866) and
sse Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (1868),whichhadmultipleeditionsand con-
rP y tributedsignificantlytospreadingDarwin’sworkintheGerman-speakingworld.
tisre Haeckelisespeciallyrememberedforhisideathatontogenyrecapitulatesphyl-
v
in
U ogeny,thatis,thelifeoftheorganismrecapitulatestheevolutionofthespecies.
e
g
dirb The English expressions “life-form” and “form of life,” sometimes with
m
a reference to life on other worlds, became common in the mid- and late nine-
C
y
b e teenth century in both the United Kingdom and the United States (Helmreich
n
iln andRoosth2010:36–37).
o
d
eh From other more philosophy-oriented sources, including the Historisches
silbu Wörterbuch der Philosophie (Ritter et al. 2007), we learn that Friedrich
P
3
1 SchleiermacherusesthewordLebensformasearlyashislecturesonpsychology
5
6
4
9 in 1830 while considering the relationship between the individual and society
8
0
11 (Schleiermacher 1862).2 Wilhelm Wundt, considered the founder of modern
8
7
9
/7
1
01 2 Thelecturesweregivenbetween1818and1834.AccordingtoHacker(2015:2),Schleiermacher
.01 usedthetermLebensformasasynonymofLebenstypus,withthemeaning“personalcharacter
/gro formationinrelationtosociety.”
.io
d
//:sp
tth