Reviews for Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy: A Reexamination of the Foundations of Social Science ...

The average rating for Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy: A Reexamination of the Foundations of Social Science ... based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-08-19 00:00:00 Phil Earnster Spoiler alert: Witgenstein doesn't have a political philosophy. However, Danford's book offers an illuminating examination of the political philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, Aristotle and Plato via an exposition of Wittgenstein's philosophy of language. In the process, he provides a clear description of how Wittgenstein's investgations into language via concepts like games and grammar work to solve philosophical problems, including problems of the grounding of political philosophy. Starting with Hobbes, Danford examines the Modern attempts to ground political thought in a mathematical model. Then using Wittgenstein's examination of primitive language games, he demonstrates the limits of this approach and the impossibility of a set of universally agreed upon definitions as the foundation for political thought. He then, in turn, offers readings of Locke, Aristotle and Plato and their less foundational approaches, culimnating in an interpretation of the Meno and Plato's theory of recollection through Wittgenstein's philosophy. This is a good book and an excellent exposition of five challenging philosophers. Well worth reading.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-06-08 00:00:00 Derek CommonCobin This book is okay. It gives a very basic introduction to Wittgenstein's early and late thought as shown in his Tractatus and Investigations respectively. While the book is short, 71 pages in total, I would argue that you would get more out of Wittgenstein's A Lecture on Religious Belief. As for Wittgenstein's philosophy in relation to the topic I found my largest disagreement coming in the form of a disagreement between the implications of the conceptions of Wittgenstein's positions and the philosophers I have read before reading this book. In large part, the book focused more on Wittgenstein's earlier thought which heavily influence the Logical Positivist movement, than his later thought in the Investigations. Now, the difference I find myself in mainly comes from this first focus on the Tractatus, but it also somewhat continues into the latter half with the Investigations. In large part the disagreement I had was in the representation of the possible world being used and demonstrated. This mainly comes from Wittgenstein's Picture Theory prevalent in his Tractatus because while he would seem to definitely be against the Platonic notions of Forms being actual things/objects, there is a problematic appearance of an unexamined metaphysical claim in this Wittgenstein. That unexamined metaphysical claim, which is what I disagreed with the most, deals with Immobility vs. Mobility. Now this goes back to Plato, but it's purest form would probably be, in Parmenides, that is to say, the picture theory, from the way described in the book does not allow for change or does not consider change possible. However, I am on the Henri Bergson who influenced Gilles Deleuze on the matter of Durée or Becoming. Other than this, I don't think this book needs any attention. It is not a waste to read, but it is not something one needs to go out and look for.