The Divided Line

  • John Llewelyn

Abstract

Presentation or public practice. Ostension or institution. It is natural to suppose that it is one or the other of these alternatives that is the bedrock of meaning. Whether semiological rock-bottom is the one or the other or both is the topic of a debate that was already underway with Cratylus and is underway still after Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein. Presentational theories are of two kinds, private and public. It is an open question whether the parousia Wittgenstein posits in the Tractatus is private or public. That is a question that seems not to interest him there. Parousia goes public only in the Blue Book where the task formerly attributed to ostension neutrally described is transferred to criteria and rules.1 But the identification of criteria depends on more or less direct deixis, phenomenological demonstration. In the Philosophical Investigations and the Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics the assumption of more or less rigid designation that both the private and the public analyses assume is replaced by a semiology restricted to the description of language games and forms of life, a semiology which, as Heidegger would say, sees sense and reference as primarily forms of handiness, Zuhandenheit, Handlung and praxis rather than of presentation and representation.

Keywords

Manifold Posit Sine Trench Topo 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    See Jaakko and Merrill B. Hintikka, ‘The Development of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy: The Hidden Unity’, Acts of the 7th Wittgenstein Symposium (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1983) pp. 425ff.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967) 289, 290.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emmanuel Levinas, Autrement qu’être ou au-delà de l’essence (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1978) p. 213 [Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1981) p. 168].Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Gottlob Frege, Philosophical Writings (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952) pp. 160–1.Google Scholar
  5. 10.
    Jean Starobinski, Les Mots sous les mots (Paris: Gallimard, 1971) p. 154.Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    Derrida, ‘Envoi’, Actes du XVIIIe Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Strasbourg, 1980 (Paris: Vrin), p. 6 [‘Sending: On Representation’, Social Research, 49 (1982) p. 297].Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    Derrida, ‘My Chances/Mes Chances: A Rendezvous with Some Epicurean Stereophanies’, Joseph H. Smith and William Kerrigan (eds), Taking Chances: Derrida, Psychoanalysis and Literature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984) p. 21.Google Scholar
  8. 20.
    Nelson Goodman, Fact, Fiction and Forecast (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965) pp. 74–5; cp. pp. 79–81, 93–100.Google Scholar
  9. 22.
    Saul A. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982) p. 20.Google Scholar
  10. 23.
    W. V. Quine, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969) p. 48.Google Scholar
  11. 25.
    G. W. F. Hegel, Early Theological Writings (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971) pp. 189ff.Google Scholar
  12. 26.
    Maurice Blanchot, L’Espace littéraire (Paris: Gallimard, 1955) p. 34.Google Scholar
  13. 27.
    Stéphane Mallarmé, Oeuvres complètes (Paris: Gallimard, 1945) p. 387.Google Scholar
  14. 28.
    Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche et la philosophie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970) pp. 38–9.Google Scholar
  15. 29.
    A. E. Taylor, A Commentary on Plato’s Timœus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928) p. 300.Google Scholar
  16. 30.
    A. E. Taylor, Plato (London: Methuen, 1949) p. 455.Google Scholar
  17. 31.
    Richard Kearney, Dialogues with Contemporary Continental Thinkers (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984) p. 119. Cp. p. 126: ‘Deconstruction gives pleasure in that it gives desire. To deconstruct a text is to disclose how it functions as desire, as a search for presence and fulfilment which is interminably deferred. One cannot read without opening oneself to the desire of language, to the search for that which remains absent and other than oneself. Without a certain love of the text, no reading would be possible. In every reading there is a corps-à-corps between reader and text, an incorporation of the reader’s desire into the desire of the text. Here is pleasure, the very opposite of that arid intellectualism of which deconstruction has so often been accused.’Google Scholar
  18. 32.
    Richard Rorty, ‘Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: An Essay on Derrida’, New Literary History, 10 (1978) pp. 146–7,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. cited at Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983) p. 144.Google Scholar
  20. 33.
    Jean Hyppolite, ‘Le Coup de dés de Stéphane Mallarmé et le message’, Etudes philosophiques, 13 (1958) p. 466.Google Scholar
  21. 34.
    Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘Glas-Piece: a Compte Rendu’, Diacritics, 7 (1977) p. 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© John Llewelyn 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Llewelyn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations