Catholic books on Wittgenstein and Heidegger

[StudentMI]

I’m looking for books from a Catholic perspective on the two philosophers in the thread title. I know Pope Benedict XVI mentioned Heidegger several times, but I’m wondering if there are longer treatments available, perhaps books that analyze their ideas in light of Catholic theology.

 

[mesmeridicus]

As pertains to LW, I have never come across such a book. To understand his thoughts on religious belief and God you will be best served by reading the collections “Lectures and Conversation (on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief)”, and “Culture and Value”. The first consists of lecture notes and recollections of private conversations, primarily by his student Rush Rhees, while the second is taken directly from his personal notes and diaries.

In terms of understanding his approach towards philosophy, these collections will be of marginal utility. Even in terms of illuminating LW’s conception of God and religious belief they are extremely limited. “Culture and Value” in particular is valuable only insofar as it gives you a picture of what kind of man he was. Over the past few years I have devoured LW – reading everything I could get my hands on – and I still have a poor understanding of how one would apply his thought or method to religious belief.

I would like to say that LW was a deeply religious man; but, at the same time, I am unsure whether he believed in God.

I would say that LW took a dim view of Catholic theology qua metaphysics. Any attempt to integrate his method with traditional Catholic theology will do violence to either.

 

[polytropos]

On the contrary, Wittgenstein’s most illustrious student was the famous Catholic analytic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, whose work is worth taking a look at. A few collections of her essays were recently published, one of which is titled From Plato to Wittgenstein, and many of the essays are, of course, on Wittgenstein. (They are fairly difficult, however. It is probably worth reading Wittgenstein first.) Some of her other recent collections are a bit more accessible: Human Life, Action, and Ethics and Faith in a Hard Ground. I believe she wrote a commentary of sorts on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, and she even offered the first major translation of his Philosophical Investigations (and a few other works), though I think that P.M.S. Hacker has improved her translation since.

I wouldn’t say that Wittgenstein is impossible to integrate with Catholic philosophy. Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Geach (her husband, who recently passed) are examples to the contrary. Certainly his Tractatus was a logical-positivist manifesto, but he came to reject much of it later.

I’m not sure he had any particular disdain for Catholic philosophy. He had immense respect for Anscombe, who was a Thomist, but I’m not sure whether he read much Catholic philosophy himself. I recall reading somewhere that he never read Aristotle, either. What he did have some disdain for was systematic philosophy in general; his tendency was to attempt to resolve philosophical questions by examining their “grammar” and the way that they are framed, and he was skeptical of any sort of “grand” metaphysical theories. But I don’t think that binds any Wittgensteinian to skepticism about metaphysics. His contribution to the analytical method were valuable, and some problems can be resolved by conceptual analysis–though not all. (John Searle, I think, commented that Wittgenstein made systematic philosophy possible, despite refusing to engage in it himself. He removed pitfalls, but I think in his wake, possibilities remain.)

Despite not reading Aristotle, his philosophy of mind (it has been argued, at least) bore a little resemblance to hylemorphic dualism. (Although interpretations of his views tend to be controversial.) Peter Hacker and Anthony Kenny are both Wittgensteinians who have tendencies toward varieties of hylemorphic dualism, despite being neither Catholics nor theists.

 

[utunumsint]

Benedict M. Asheley in his book “The Way Toward Wisdom” had this to say about Wittgenstein:

Another important factor in postmodernism comes from Analytical Philosophy through the work of the Viennese Ludwig Wittgenstein, who did much of his work in England and had connections both with Logical Positivists and Analysts. His later writings are obscure, but are best interpreted for our purposes as an attack on the Cartesian dualism and idealist conception of metaphysics. In this sense they point, unknowingly and indirectly, as it were, to the need for a return to the Aristotelian insistence that if there is to be a valid metaphysics it must rest on ordinary human experience of the world of sensible objects and the human body, not on “the turn to the subject” cut off from the world. Wittgenstein, however, did not propose a positive direction that such a recover of a no-nonsense metaphysics might take.

The author of the book I quoted this from is a Catholic priest and a River Forest Aristotelian Thomist who believes very strongly that the a proper understanding of Aquinas and Aristotle must be grounded in the physics of Aristotle, properly rehabilitated to engage with modern science.This grounding of metaphysics in the “ordinary human experience of the world of sensible objects and the body” isolated this form of Thomism from the criticisms of Wittgenstein against idealist forms of philosophy. (As an aside, he also thinks this move isolates his form of Thomism from criticisms of Kant, among others).

His criticism of the Analytic Thomistic philosophy which inherits much (I think) from Wittgenstein, is that they never seem to move out of the sphere of the ontological meaning of words and grammar and so never approach back to what Aristotle and Aquinas believed to be the first philosophy, which is metaphysics.

To be honest, I haven’t read Wittgenstein, so I don’t know if what he claims is true or not, but I have to recommend his book. It is a fantastic summary of Western Philosophical thought from the lense of Aristotelian Thomism and tends to wholeheartedly support criticism of idealist philosophies.

For Heidegger, he has a ton of stuff to say, and I need more time to assimilate his opinion. I’ll see what I can drum up through the index if you are interested.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

July 22, 2013 is when the OP was first posted! Too bad he wont be around to read our responses!

I PM’d him in case he is still interested.

God bless,
Ut

 

[mesmeridicus]

On the contrary, Wittgenstein’s most illustrious student was the famous Catholic analytic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, whose work is worth taking a look at. A few collections of her essays were recently published, one of which is titled From Plato to Wittgenstein

, and many of the essays are, of course, on Wittgenstein. (They are fairly difficult, however. It is probably worth reading Wittgenstein first.) Some of her other recent collections are a bit more accessible: Human Life, Action, and Ethics and Faith in a Hard Ground. I believe she wrote a commentary of sorts on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, and she even offered the first major translation of his Philosophical Investigations (and a few other works), though I think that P.M.S. Hacker has improved her translation since.

I understand that Anscombe was Catholic; indeed, Wittgenstein remarked to his student and friend M. Drury “I seem to be surrounded now by Roman Catholic converts! I don’t know whether they pray for me. I hope they do.” (Recollections, page 148)

I wouldn’t say that Wittgenstein is impossible to integrate with Catholic philosophy. Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Geach (her husband, who recently passed) are examples to the contrary. Certainly his Tractatus

 

[mesmeridicus]

Another important factor in postmodernism comes from Analytical Philosophy through the work of the Viennese Ludwig Wittgenstein, who did much of his work in England and had connections both with Logical Positivists and Analysts. His later writings are obscure, but are best interpreted for our purposes as an attack on the Cartesian dualism and idealist conception of metaphysics.

his later writings are obscure

I laughed. In my experience, anyone who’s attempted to comprehend the TLP has found the PI a breath of fresh air.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi mesmeridicus,

Can you define TLP and PI?

Right. I think I got it.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Philosophical Investigations

God bless,
Ut

 

[mesmeridicus]

I’m sorry.

TLP —> Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

The only book published during his lifetime, characteristic of his early views. Dense, difficult, profound, mystical. A foundational text of Logical-Positivism, a school to which W did not belong.

PI —> Philosophical Investigations

Published posthumously in 1953 by his student G.E.M Anscombe. Vastly influential. The relationship between the two works is controversial.

Other abbreviations: CV: Culture and Value; LC: Lectures and Conversations (On Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief); OC: On Certainty; Z: Zettel; BB: Blue and Brown Books; etc etc etc.

 

[polytropos]

That there exist students of W who are Catholic does not show that Wittgensteinian thought is compatible with traditional Catholic theology.

Of course that on its own does not show that Wittgensteinian thought is compatible with traditional Catholic theology. But the fact that there were Catholic students of Wittgenstein who to a large extent did employ his method and did defend traditional Catholic theology does show that his thought is compatible with traditional Catholic theology.

Now, Anscombe and Geach did not hold all of Wittgenstein’s views. But they were appreciative of his method, and applied it often. I think they tended to hold fairly extensive metaphysical views, although in their publications (at least early on) they tended not to defend their metaphysics a whole lot. (Her famous paper “Modern Moral Philosophy” is a good example of this. She doesn’t defend the metaphysics behind her ethical beliefs, which are evident in other papers she wrote for less analytic/atheist audiences, but she presents a dilemma for non-theistic moral systems.)

The TLP is not a work of logical-positivism.

I agree, but I said that it was a “logical-positivist manifesto,” ie. it was popular among logical positivists.

 

[StudentMI]

July 22, 2013 is when the OP was first posted! Too bad he wont be around to read our responses!

I PM’d him in case he is still interested.

God bless,
Ut

Thanks for the notice and the replies everyone. I’d heard of Anscombe before but just her name. I did find an interesting looking book not long after I posted this thread called Heidegger: A (Very) Critical Introduction by S. J. McGrath. I started it but things came up and I didn’t get to finish it. I think I’ll start it over again. It’s published by Eerdmans, a Christian publisher and what I read did discuss Heidegger’s theological background.

 

[mesmeridicus]

I think they tended to hold fairly extensive metaphysical views, although in their publications (at least early on) they tended not to defend their metaphysics a whole lot. (Her famous paper “Modern Moral Philosophy” is a good example of this. She doesn’t defend the metaphysics behind her ethical beliefs, which are evident in other papers she wrote for less analytic/atheist audiences, but she presents a dilemma for non-theistic moral systems.)

There can be no “defense” or justification of one’s ethical beliefs via rational argument, per LW. I think this view is at odds with traditional Catholic theology. That Anscombe, as you note, did not attempt a defense in that essay is I think evidential to my point.

There are multiple views of Anscombe’s intent regarding Modern Moral Philosophy. Some believe that she was advocating a third ethical approach, distinct from from from both deontological and consequentialist approaches – namely, virtue ethics. Of course, other believe that she intended to establish the primacy of deontological (religious) ethical systems through subtle refutation of the other approaches.

W would not object to one saying “I believe in God” or “The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.” W would object to Aquinas’ Five Ways, or to the doctrine of transubstantiation to the extent that it purports to be a metaphysical theory that explains a process.

LW’s philosophy (it pains me to call it that) is incompatible with what Catholic theology purports itself to be. Would you agree with that?

 

[mesmeridicus]

I agree, but I said that it was a “logical-positivist manifesto,” ie. it was popular among logical positivists.

My bad. I said something similar in a previous post, I must have misread your comment.

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for the notice and the replies everyone. I’d heard of Anscombe before but just her name. I did find an interesting looking book not long after I posted this thread called Heidegger: A (Very) Critical Introduction by S. J. McGrath. I started it but things came up and I didn’t get to finish it. I think I’ll start it over again. It’s published by Eerdmans, a Christian publisher and what I read did discuss Heidegger’s theological background.

Hi StudentMI,

Good luck with your studies. I hope you will post your thoughts on the book when you are done with it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[polytropos]

There can be no “defense” or justification of one’s ethical beliefs via rational argument, per LW. I think this view is at odds with traditional Catholic theology. That Anscombe, as you note, did not attempt a defense in that essay is I think evidential to my point.

I think we are arguing apples to oranges if the debate is over whether all of Wittgenstein’s beliefs are compatible with Catholicism, or whether all of Anscombe’s beliefs were Wittgensteinian. I am simply saying that she was a very orthodox Catholic who was also very influenced by Wittgenstein.

I do not find Anscombe’s lack of defense in “Modern Moral Philosophy” as evidence that she believed that one cannot justify his ethics by rational argument (if that is what “your point” is), given that she does defend her ethical claims–vehemently and philosophically–in a number of other places. I simply think that she understood that her audience was primarily atheistic, and was more content to provide a dilemma than an alternative.

There are multiple views of Anscombe’s intent regarding Modern Moral Philosophy. Some believe that she was advocating a third ethical approach, distinct from from from both deontological and consequentialist approaches – namely, virtue ethics. Of course, other believe that she intended to establish the primacy of deontological (religious) ethical systems through subtle refutation of the other approaches.

There are multiple views. I’ve only read her essay once, so I won’t pretend to be an expert. I imagine her own views, like Aquinas’s, blended deontological and virtue ethics, since she clearly argues for her ethical positions, without recourse to revelation, in a number of other publications.

W would not object to one saying “I believe in God” or “The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.” W would object to Aquinas’ Five Ways, or to the doctrine of transubstantiation to the extent that it purports to be a metaphysical theory that explains a process.

LW’s philosophy (it pains me to call it that) is incompatible with what Catholic theology purports itself to be. Would you agree with that?

I’d agree that Wittgenstein himself was not a Catholic, and if all of his views were compatible with Catholicism, he would essentially have been a Catholic. But again, I think we are speaking past each other. I don’t think that all of Wittgenstein’s philosophy is compatible with Catholicism, but I think much of it is.

My bad. I said something similar in a previous post, I must have misread your comment.

No problem, I was pretty vague.