Significant Absences: Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Silence and Joyce’s Poetics of the Unspoken

Darko Blagojevic, V. V. Garić
{"title":"Significant Absences: Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Silence and Joyce’s Poetics of the Unspoken","authors":"Darko Blagojevic, V. V. Garić","doi":"10.6001/fil-soc.2024.35.1.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nThis paper discusses an important phase in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s analytic philosophy through a comparative examination of the profound correspondences that exist between his concept of silence and the poetics of another crucial authorial figure of the 20th century: James Joyce. Based on the hypothesis that there are striking resemblances between their early works, that is, between Joyce’s realistic short-story collection Dubliners and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the article employs mostly close-reading, analytical-interpretative and comparative methods. It argues that silence was an intentional intellectual, aesthetic and ethical choice of both these authors, their way to preserve the autonomy of metaphysics and to honour the beauty of the unspoken. \nStarting from their common critical treatment of the habitual and largely alienated speech, the discussion connects Wittgenstein’s philosophical attitudes regarding the imprecision and inadequacy of every-day language and Joyce’s notion of ‘spiritual paralysis’ of the city-life, which he saw as the main motive for writing his collection about fin-desiècle Dublin. On the grounds of their shared views about the limits of words, behind which there are worlds that cannot be properly uttered, the idea of silence – or the highly significant narrative absence – grows to permeate the work of both. In the case of Wittgenstein, it is a call for a new philosophy, or anti-philosophy, which in negating metaphysics in effect preserves its independence from a discursive speech which cannot express it, whereas in the case of Joyce, correspondingly (and almost simultaneously), it is a quest for a new literary mode that will foreground a particular Modernist allusiveness, rhetoric of omission and deliberately incomplete, gnomonical narrative structures. \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":502666,"journal":{"name":"Filosofija. Sociologija","volume":"5 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofija. Sociologija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6001/fil-soc.2024.35.1.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses an important phase in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s analytic philosophy through a comparative examination of the profound correspondences that exist between his concept of silence and the poetics of another crucial authorial figure of the 20th century: James Joyce. Based on the hypothesis that there are striking resemblances between their early works, that is, between Joyce’s realistic short-story collection Dubliners and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the article employs mostly close-reading, analytical-interpretative and comparative methods. It argues that silence was an intentional intellectual, aesthetic and ethical choice of both these authors, their way to preserve the autonomy of metaphysics and to honour the beauty of the unspoken. Starting from their common critical treatment of the habitual and largely alienated speech, the discussion connects Wittgenstein’s philosophical attitudes regarding the imprecision and inadequacy of every-day language and Joyce’s notion of ‘spiritual paralysis’ of the city-life, which he saw as the main motive for writing his collection about fin-desiècle Dublin. On the grounds of their shared views about the limits of words, behind which there are worlds that cannot be properly uttered, the idea of silence – or the highly significant narrative absence – grows to permeate the work of both. In the case of Wittgenstein, it is a call for a new philosophy, or anti-philosophy, which in negating metaphysics in effect preserves its independence from a discursive speech which cannot express it, whereas in the case of Joyce, correspondingly (and almost simultaneously), it is a quest for a new literary mode that will foreground a particular Modernist allusiveness, rhetoric of omission and deliberately incomplete, gnomonical narrative structures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重要的缺席:维特根斯坦的沉默哲学与乔伊斯的无言诗学
本文通过比较研究路德维希-维特根斯坦的沉默概念与 20 世纪另一位重要作家的诗学之间存在的深刻对应关系,讨论了维特根斯坦分析哲学的一个重要阶段:詹姆斯-乔伊斯。文章假设他们的早期作品(即乔伊斯的现实主义短篇小说集《都柏林人》和维特根斯坦的《逻辑哲学论》)之间存在惊人的相似之处,并以此为基础,主要采用了细读法、分析解释法和比较法。文章认为,沉默是这两位作者有意为之的思想、美学和伦理选择,是他们维护形而上学的自主性和尊重未言说之美的方式。讨论从他们对习惯性的、在很大程度上被异化的语言的共同批判出发,将维特根斯坦对日常语言的不精确性和不充分性的哲学态度与乔伊斯对城市生活的 "精神麻痹 "概念联系在一起,乔伊斯将这一概念视为创作其关于末世都柏林的文集的主要动机。他们都认为文字是有限的,文字的背后是无法言说的世界,因此,沉默的概念--或者说叙事中意义重大的缺席--逐渐渗透到两人的作品中。就维特根斯坦而言,这是一种对新哲学或反哲学的呼唤,这种哲学在否定形而上学的同时,实际上保留了形而上学的独立性,使之不受无法表达形而上学的话语的影响;而就乔伊斯而言,与此相对应(几乎同时),这是一种对新文学模式的追求,这种文学模式将突出一种特殊的现代主义 "无用性"、"省略修辞学 "以及故意不完整的、"吟诵式 "的叙事结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Uncertainty of Aviation Safety and Aviation Security in Relation to Human Rights: Philosophical Aspects of Legal Definitions Stambulo konvencijos konstitucingumo klausimas Lietuvoje Can Artificial Intelligence Engage in the Practice of Law as the Art of Good and Justice? A Theory of Justice and Social Mechanics Violence of Adult Sons Against Mothers in the Context of Matricide
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1