Life in the Post-Analytic World, Given by the Man Who Ended Philosophy As History Knew It

Home » Concerning Wittgenstein The Person » Wittgenstein's Life and Likings » [Wittrs] Re Kirby's Question about Misogyny
[Wittrs] Re Kirby's Question about Misogyny [message #5458] Sat, 21 August 2010 15:08 Go to next message
walterhorn is currently offline  walterhorn
Messages: 6
Registered: August 2010
Junior Member
He had a very close relationship with Elizabeth Anscombe. He did call her "Old Man" or something like that, which could cut in either direction, I suppose.


Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
[Wittrs] Re: Re Kirby's Question about Misogyny [message #5460 is a reply to message #5458] Sat, 21 August 2010 16:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sean Wilson is currently offline  Sean Wilson
Messages: 793
Registered: August 2009
Location: Form of Life
Senior Member

... it seems to me that one wouldn't really superimpose the term "misogyny" on behavior that occurs in a patriarchal culture. Historians might call such a thing "presentistic." Of course, I could be wrong if something else is meant by it. Fundamentally, the question is whether it is a clinical sort of term or whether it is something ideological. Many of these group-defense terms come to take on the license of a sword or weapon in the post-modern culture as opposed to being something reserved for a shield or "foul."

Instead of asking that question, it would be much more helpful to ask more directly: what were his attitudes about women, and how were they comparative to the era in which he lived. There is of course plenty in Wittgenstein's history to call him chauvinistic by today's standards. He would expect his meals on time when living in houses with wives. He had patriarchal feelings toward his once-apparent fiance, Marguerite Respinger. He once told one of his students in the mid-to-late 40s-- Anascomb I think -- that he was happy no women had enrolled for one of his classes. (There's much worse stuff than this, too).

But none of this is to say anything normative without imposing a relevant peer-standard and without examine whether his behavior was injurious as opposed to just blustery (which it usually always was). You know, I imagine that asking what Wittgenstein in the first half of 1900s felt about women as an ideological matter is a lot like asking strident lesbians what they think about males, today. I bet you'd get some interesting attitudes that would compare with one another at the level of bluster.

What one would make with any of this, I'm not sure.
Regards and thanks.

Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.

[Updated on: Thu, 16 December 2010 20:00] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Re: [Wittrs] Re: Re Kirby's Question about Misogyny [message #6892 is a reply to message #5460] Fri, 26 August 2011 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
zettel is currently offline  zettel
Messages: 5
Registered: August 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Junior Member

By modern norms I think you could certainly call Wittgenstein sexist: he seems to have regarded women as superficial - with one or two exceptions (eg, Anscombe). But, of course, that's not the same thing as "misogyny". I've not read anything about him that suggested he hated women, any more than he hated kittens or puppies. He just didn't take them very seriously.
Re: [Wittrs] Re: Re Kirby's Question about Misogyny [message #6939 is a reply to message #6892] Wed, 09 November 2011 23:52 Go to previous message
RubenMicah is currently offline  RubenMicah
Messages: 1
Registered: November 2011
Location: 1945 Sundance Ln #314, Co...
Junior Member

Nice link walterhorn, the design of the page is sweet.

Ruben Micah
Previous Topic: [Wittrs] Was Wittgenstein misogynistic?
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Wed Mar 21 03:32:44 EDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01442 seconds