René Troy Tun

 Wittgenstein: Opening Investigations

Michael Luntley, Wiley Blackwell 2015

Michael Luntley offers a revolutionary interpretation of the opening section of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. Luntley’s reading challenges the prevailing view that there is a grand sweep to Wittgenstein’s enterprise and marks a major departure from standard arguments about the nature of language, meaning, ostensive definition, and normativity. Opening Investigations introduces an improvisational conception of language use and posits that understanding language is more akin to the

open-endedness of aesthetic judgment.

In defense of his argument, Luntley provides close readings of the primary text alongside critical engagement with the most recent literature on Wittgenstein and other contemporary philosophical work. Written in accessible and engaging prose, Opening Investigations makes a powerful case for re-integrating Wittgenstein studies into contemporary philosophical debates. This book is sure to provoke lively debate among Wittgenstein scholars and will be of great interest to anyone studying Wittgenstein’s work.

The book -

Critically engages with the most recent exegetical literature on Wittgenstein and other state-of-the-art philosophical work.

Encourages the re-incorporation of Wittgenstein studies into the mainstream philosophical conversation.

Has profound consequences for how we go on to read the rest of Wittgenstein’s major work.

Makes a significant contribution not only to the literature on Wittgenstein, but also to studies in philosophy of language.

============

Marco Almeida

A good book surely. But I already understand. Why should I bother.

René Troy Tun

Marco Almeida There are very few scholars, including Kripke, who would boldly claim that they have fully understood Wittgenstein. Actually, I have never heard such claim before.

Marco Almeida

Donald Brackett Fair enough assumption. But to assume from what I said and to infer I don't qualify as a scholar I doubt is up for interpretation. I don't need to be appraised - coming from the audience that reads it, my point = if I don't like what a person has to offer in philosophy, how would they know? I classify my criticism in silence. Which is where I came from toward you. (Philosophy in my view requires that.) Which means even if a scholar has nothing to offer, why should I care. How could they possibly ever know? I have written essays in a similar manner to university professors who in my view have no credence to what is shadow of the truth may be. I find my cross in philosophy as an example of style and prose to inform the masses what finds something for themselves. To instruct something that is not already known, is quite frankly, defensible enough given the right formulation of language.

Conclusively: To master this type of thinking is dialectic theoretically multiplying the use of logic into a supposition. = my personal idea of Wittgenstein.