RESEARCH ARTICLE
‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’:
Wi gens ein’s Roman icis Aes he ics
Clin on Pe e Ve donscho
U ech Uni e si y, NL
c.p. e donscho[email p o ec ed]
Why is aes he ics impo an o Wi gens ein? Wha , acco ding o him, is he
unc ion o he aes he ic? My answe consis s o h ee pa s: i s , I a gue ha
Wi gens ein inds himsel in an apo ia o no ma i e consciousness – ha is o
say, a p oblem wi h ega d o ou awa eness o he wo ld in e ms o i s ela ion
o a no m. Second, I a gue ha he unc ion o Wi gens ein’s aes he ic w i ings
is o deal wi h his apo ia. Thi d, h ough a compa ison wi h F ied ich Schlegel’s
w i ings on allego y, I y o show ha he way in which Wi gens ein esol es
he apo ia ende s him a Roman icis philosophe . The poin o an aes he ic in e -
ac ion, o Wi gens ein, is ha i can ende clea wha canno be desc ibed
wi hou unning agains he walls o ou cage: he absolu e. Th ough aes he ic
in e ac ions we a e able o (indi ec ly) access a g ound o no ms by which we
expe ience ou sel es as uncondi ionally bound.
Keywo ds: Wi gens ein; s yle; Schlegel; allego y; aes he ic easons; e hical no ms
I. In oduc ion
Aes he ic conside a ions we e a he cen e o Wi gens ein’s hinking.1 Why? Wha , acco ding
o Wi gens ein, is he unc ion o he aes he ic? My answe will consis o h ee pa s: i s , I
will a gue ha Wi gens ein inds himsel in an apo ia o no ma i e consciousness, ha is o
say, a p oblem wi h ega d o ou awa eness o he wo ld in e ms o i s ela ion o a no m.
Second, I will a gue ha he unc ion o Wi gens ein’s aes he ic w i ings is o deal wi h his
apo ia. Thi d, on he basis o Wi gens ein’s aes he ic w i ings and a compa ison o he Ea ly
Ge man Roman icis s, I will gi e an in e p e a ion o how Wi gens ein deals wi h his apo ia.
1
Wi gens ein’s w i ings a e abb e ia ed as ollows: ‘A Lec u e on E hics’, Philosophical Re iew 74 (1965): 3–12,
abb e ia ed as LE; Lec u es and Con e sa ions on Aes he ics, Psychology and Religious Belie , ed. Cy il Ba e
(Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess, 1967), abb e ia ed as LC ( ollowed by a Roman nume al o he lec u e,
and an A abic nume al o he pa ag aph); Cul u e and Value: A Selec ion om he Pos humous Remains, 2nd ed.,
ed. Geo g Hen ik on W igh and Alois Pichle , ans. Pe e Winch (Ox o d: Blackwell, 1998), abb e ia ed as CV;
Wi gens ein’s Lec u es: Camb idge 1930–1933; F om he No es o G.E. Moo e, ed. Da id G. S e n, B ian Roge s,
and Gab iel Ci on (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2016), abb e ia ed as M; On Ce ain y, ed. G. E. M.
Anscombe and Geo g Hen ik on W igh , ans. Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe (Ox o d: Blackwell, 1974),
abb e ia ed as OC; F ied ich Waismann, ‘No es on Talks wi h Wi gens ein’, Philosophical Re iew 74 (1965):
12–16, abb e ia ed as NTW.
Ve donscho , Clin on Pe e . ‘‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’:
Wi gens ein’s Roman icis Aes he ics.’
Es e ika: The Eu opean
Jou nal o Aes he ics
LVIII/XIV, no. 1 (2021): pp. 72–88. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.33134/eeja.222
ESTETIKA
THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’ 73
The apo ia o no ma i e consciousness consis s o i s being bo h supe na u al, as well as
inescapable. E en hough e hical no ms acco ding o Wi gens ein, a e no en i ies o he
na u al wo ld and so canno be spoken o sensibly, s ill we ind ou sel es unable o s op
sea ching o answe s o ques ions o igh and w ong. No ma i e beings, so Wi gens ein
hough , ind hemsel es inexo ably con on ed wi h he ques ion o how o li e igh ly, bu
wi hou anywhe e o u n o in o de o ac ually ind no ms ha allow o a igh li e.
In his aes he ic w i ings, by con as , Wi gens ein alks eely o no ms ha ende he
objec o one’s aes he ic in e ac ion igh o co ec . E en hose objec s ha a e co ec in
i ue o some hing else han he es ablished cul u al sensibili ies o a pa icula ime and
place can be app ecia ed o hei igh ness. Howe e , he no m o ‘hidden law’ o which hey
co espond canno be a icula ed.
This aises a puzzle: how can aes he ic easons a une us o he igh ness o some hing,
wi hou a icula ing he e ms in i ue o which his hing is igh ? Building on an appa -
en a ini y be ween Wi gens ein’s hinking and he Ea ly Ge man Roman icis s, I will
o e an in e p e a ion acco ding o which aes he ic p ac ices a e such as o mo e beyond
philosophical a gumen in o de o exp ess and expe ience wha philosophy aims o bu
canno desc ibe: he absolu e, o he ul ima e ounda ion o ou no ma i e amewo ks. To
come o accep an aes he ic eason is he e o e o come o accep a way o hinking ha i s
ende s possible no ma i e e alua ion.
In he ollowing, I will i s make explici wha I ake o be he apo ia o no ma i e con-
sciousness in Wi gens ein’s philosophy, speci ically in ‘A Lec u e on E hics’ (Sec ion II). I will
hen a gue ha Wi gens ein’s aes he ic ema ks can be ead as a way o dealing wi h his
apo ia while also gi ing ise o a puzzle: How can aes he ic easons a une us o some hing
hey canno a icula e (Sec ion III)? Las ly, I will o e my in e p e a ion o Wi gens ein’s
aes he ic ema ks by eading hem unde a Roman icis ligh (Sec ion IV).
II. The Apo ia o No ma i e Consciousness
Call no ma i e consciousness any awa eness o any hing in ela ion o a no m o which ha
hing is aken o con o m. The apo ia o no ma i e consciousness a ises when we a e awa e
o some hing in ela ion o an absolu e no m, ha is, a no m ha does no de i e om any
desc ip ion o wha he hing is, bu a he holds ega dless. Such an awa eness is one ha
Wi gens ein deems e hical in con adis inc ion o an awa eness o ‘ ela i e alue’. The p ob-
lem wi h an absolu e no ma i e awa eness is i s g ounding: i i holds ega dless o any ma -
e o ac , we become unable o say why i should hold in he i s place. E hics, acco ding o
Wi gens ein, ies o go beyond he bounda ies o scien i ically e i iable s a emen s and so
i s s a emen s a e, s ic ly speaking, nonsensical. Bu mo e han me ely a pseudo-scien i ic
discipline, e hics is also a s a e o mind ha holds sway e en i someone we e o ell us
ha i s s a emen s we e nonsense: mo e han me ely de ending an e o - heo e ical posi-
ion, Wi gens ein inds himsel unable o nego ia e he ension be ween he pe sis ence
o absolu e no ma i e consciousness and he inabili y o gi e a sensible a icula ion o ha
consciousness. Tha is he apo ia.
Wi gens ein s a s ‘A Lec u e on E hics’ wi h some in oduc o y ema ks ha seem ou o
place, bo de line o ensi e e en. He ells his audience ha he will make use o he o ma o
he one-hou lec u e o ell his audience some hing he is ‘keen on communica ing’, a he
han gi e hem a lec u e abou logic, a opic ha would a he equi e a ull cou se o lec-
u es. Mo eo e , Wi gens ein ejec s he al e na i e o a ‘popula -scien i ic lec u e’ as a banal
medium ha does no accomplish any hing in he way o unde s anding and ins ead sa is ies
only a ‘supe icial cu iosi y abou he la es disco e ies o science’. The e o e, he will speak
abou ‘a subjec which seems o [him] o be o gene al impo ance’, which, as i u ns ou , is
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’74
no logic o science a all, bu a he ‘E hics’ (signi ican ly, and unlike wo ds such as ‘science’
and ‘logic’, w i en wi h a capi al i s le e ; LE, p. 4).
The con emp uous ema k abou pop-science can be ead as a snee agains such wo ks as
James Jeans’s The Mys e ious Uni e se, a book ha Wi gens ein de es ed and hough mis-
leading (LC, III.36). Bu mo e signi ican ly, he snee also ehea ses a cen al a gumen o he
pape . Wi gens ein de es s pop-science o wo easons. Mos ob iously, Wi gens ein ound
ha popula izing science implied a kind o idol wo ship, an a i ude con a y o he scien i ic
mindse i sel . Wi gens ein is implying ha , con a y o science and logic, e hics is eally
a he he so o hing ha is o gene al impo ance. The laype son’s desi e o unde s and
science’s la es disco e ies is hen supe icial, no only because a uly in e es ed pe son will
ha e a o ally di e en mindse , bu also because, in gene al, one should a he be cu ious
abou he p oblems o e hics. Al eady an icipa ing he conclusion o his lec u e, Wi gens ein
is se ing up a dicho omy be ween science and e hical enqui y and is u ging his audience o
wo k up an in e es in he la e . Howe e , as we shall see, i will u n ou o be impossible
o a gue ha e hics is eally o gene al impo ance, and so he eby he lec u e will u n ou o
be i sel an ins ance o he impossibili y o a icula e an absolu e no m.
Wi gens ein s a s he lec u e p ope wi h a dis inc ion be ween he ela i e and he abso-
lu e sense o he wo d ‘good’, and a gues ha only he la e (absolu e) sense is he one ha
e hical enqui y conce ns i sel wi h. In i s ela i e sense, ‘good’ e e s o a co ec se o a ai s
ela i e o a p ede e mined pu pose. In i s absolu e sense, by con as , ‘good’ e e s o a no m
ha ob ains ega dless o any p ede e mina ion o pu pose and, consequen ly, canno be
de i ed om any s a e o a ai s. Bu whe eas judgemen s o ela i e alue a e, ul ima ely,
bo h unp oblema ic as well as i ial, judgemen s o absolu e, e hical alue p esen us wi h a
big p oblem: hey a e nonsensical.
Judgemen s o ela i e alue a e hose ha hold ue gi en a pa icula goal and as such a e
eally jus desc ibable as s a emen s o ac . Wi gens ein s a es: ‘Ins ead o saying “This is he
igh way o G an ches e ”, I could equally well ha e said, “This is he igh way you ha e o go
i you wan o ge o G an ches e in he sho es ime”’ (LE, p. 6). By con as , judgemen s o
absolu e alue canno be edesc ibed in his way:
Now le us see wha we could possibly mean by he exp ession, ‘ he absolu ely igh
oad’. I hink i would be he oad which e e ybody on seeing i would, wi h logical
necessi y, ha e o go, o be ashamed o no going. And simila ly he absolu e good, i
i is a desc ibable s a e o a ai s, would be one which e e ybody, independen o his
as es and inclina ions, would necessa ily b ing abou o eel guil y o no b inging
abou . And I wan o say ha such a s a e o a ai s is a chime a. (LE, p. 7, emphasis
in o iginal)
Wi gens ein is no saying ha mo al judgemen s a e necessa ily in e o . Ra he , he is ejec -
ing he chime a o a concep ion o he absolu e good as a desc ibable s a e o a ai s (which
is di e en om saying ha he absolu e good i sel is chime ical). The p oblem is, howe e ,
ha no o he egis e exis s in language, o he han ha o he ac s, ha is, s a es o a ai s
ha can be p oposi ionally a icula ed. Thus, e hics is he nonsensical a emp o say some hing
abou ha o which one canno speak: ‘E hics, i i is any hing, is supe na u al and ou wo ds
will only exp ess ac s’ (ibid.).2
2
The use o he wo d ‘supe na u al’ makes clea ha Wi gens ein is no jus alking abou e hical issues, bu ha
he akes hese o be deeply en wined wi h eligious ma e s as well. And so, like e hical s a emen s, Wi gens ein
is e incing scep icism wi h ega d o eligious doc ines. See CV, p. 61.
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’ 75
Wi h his, Wi gens ein eaches his (in) amous conclusion ha all a emp s o a icula e
e hical (o eligious) hough is a way o unning agains he bounda ies o language: ‘This
unning agains he walls o ou cage is pe ec ly, absolu ely hopeless. E hics so a as i sp ings
om he desi e o say some hing abou he ul ima e meaning o li e, he absolu e good, he
absolu e aluable, can be no science’ (LE, pp. 11–12). Wi gens ein s a ed his lec u e wi h
a dicho omy be ween science and e hics, bu now i seems ha e hics i sel is a hopelessly
(pseudo-)scien i ic a emp o cap u e in wo ds ha which is necessa ily beyond language.
Thus, i seems qui e na u al o conclude ha we should he e o e abandon all hope o e hi-
cal enqui y. A e all, om he essen ial nonsensicali y o any e hical s a emen , i is only a
a he small s ep o he conclusion ha e hics i sel is a sham. I is only he e y las sen ence
o he lec u e ha p oblema izes such a conclusion: ‘[E hics] is a documen o a endency in
he human mind which I pe sonally canno help espec ing deeply and I would no o my
li e idicule i ’ (LE, p. 12).
Besides he d ama ic b eak wi h he ea lie a gumen s pu po ing o show he nonsensical-
i y o e hics ( a he han i s espec abili y), wha s ands ou in his sen ence, is he shi om
philosophical a gumen owa ds a pe sonal con ession. Ins ead o ying o con ince his audi-
ence o he soundness o his conclusion, Wi gens ein me ely alks abou his own eelings. In
con e sa ion wi h F ied ich Waismann, he explained why his is impo an :
The e hical canno be augh . I I needed a heo y in o de o explain o ano he he
essence o he e hical, he e hical would ha e no alue a all.
A he end o my lec u e on e hics, I spoke in he i s pe son. I belie e ha is qui e
essen ial. He e no hing mo e can be es ablished, I can only appea as a pe son speak-
ing o mysel . (NTW, p. 16)
Wi gens ein’s use o he con essional me hod has been no ed by o he au ho s, no ably S anley
Ca ell. Acco ding o Ca ell, his medium is closely ela ed o he message o Wi gens ein’s
la e philosophy, pa icula ly i s concep ion o philosophy i sel .3 Wi gens ein’s la e wo k
(in pa icula he In es iga ions) is no conce ned wi h gi ing con incing a gumen s o o
agains a pa icula way o hinking, o ‘s yle o hinking’. A e all, how would you con ince
someone o he alidi y o ano he way o hinking, i i is exac ly one’s way o hinking ha
i s ende s his o ha claim con incing?
In Sec ion IV, I will e u n o he no ion o a s yle o hough in Wi gens ein, as well as i s
aes he ic unde pinnings. Fo now, wha ma e s is ha Wi gens ein, aced wi h he impos-
sibili y o a icula e why he e hical is impo an , can only con ess ha he eels his way. The
hope is hen ha i pe suades people o see hings his way. Bu i hey do no , Wi gens ein is
powe less o ac ually con ince hem. In ac , hen, hough espec is a quin essen ially e hical
a i ude i sel , Wi gens ein’s eelings lack he e y quali y ha would ende hem absolu ely
no ma i e, ha is, exp essi e o an absolu e no m: in e subjec i e mo i a ing o ce.
O cou se, no e e y kind o espec is e hically impo an . Fo ins ance, I migh eel a
deep espec o he spo i e accomplishmen s o I alian cycling legend Gino Ba ali. I
emains an open ques ion, howe e , o wha ex en ha eeling also compels me o ying
o ins il i in o he s. I seems pe ec ly easonable, o ins ance, o belie e his espec mus
be sha ed by o he cycling ans bu no one else necessa ily. Bu his is no he kind o espec
3
S anley Ca ell, ‘The A ailabili y o Wi gens ein’s La e Philosophy’, in Mus We Mean Wha We Say?: A Book o
Essays, 2nd ed. (Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2002), 66. The con essional egis e also emphasizes
once mo e ha he e hical, o Wi gens ein, is insepa able om he eligious.
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’76
ha Wi gens ein eels o he e hical. A e all, his is wha makes his lec u e o gene al
impo ance: he ac ha he s udy o e hics is a es amen o a endency o which a human
mind mus no be ee. E e yone, ega dless o pe sonal likings, should eel he way ha
Wi gens ein does. E en i , and p ecisely because, Wi gens ein, pe his own a gumen s, is
impo en o a icula e why one should eel ha way.
Thus, he lec u e on e hics e mina es in an apo ia: e en while i holds ha e hical enqui y
is he hopeless a emp o gi e scien i ic o m o ha which lies beyond he bounda ies o
ou wo ld, a hin o no ma i e consciousness emains. As Wi gens ein pu i himsel , again
in con e sa ion wi h Waismann:
This h us agains he limi s o language is e hics. I ega d i as e y impo an o
pu an end o all he cha e abou e hics – whe he he e is knowledge in e hics,
whe he he e a e alues, whe he he Good can be de ined, e c. […] Bu he endency,
he h us , poin s o some hing. (NTW, p. 13, emphasis in o iginal)
This hin o no ma i e consciousness, he ac ha we ind in ou sel es no me e psychologi-
cal causa ion bu he inescapable imp ession ha he e is some hing poin ing o some hing
else ha ou language does no enable us o iden i y, his will subsequen ly become he
de ining elemen o Wi gens ein’s aes he ics.
III. The Pe cep ion o Fi
In his sec ion, I shall a gue ha Wi gens ein’s aes he ic e lec ions add ess, in hei own way,
he apo ia discussed in he p e ious sec ion: he hin o no ma i e consciousness and he
impossibili y o i s a icula ion. I shall show, howe e , ha while he apo ia haun s he lec u e
on e hics, Wi gens ein is unbo he ed by i in his lec u es on aes he ics. Wha Wi gens ein
a iously calls ‘ he obscu e pa adigm’ o ‘hidden law’ acco ding o which some hing is igh ,
is no a p oblem, bu a he a sou ce o sa is ac ion e en i i does (as i mus ) emain hidden.
I shall p oceed as ollows: i s , I will y o show ha Wi gens ein’s poin o depa u e, a
c i ique o psychological app oaches o aes he ics, is mean as a way o a guing ha wha is a
s ake is no causali y bu a he no ma i i y. In aes he ic in e ac ions, we sea ch o , ask, and
y o unde s and easons why we do (no ) app ecia e he objec o aes he ic e lec ion/pe -
cep ion. Second, I will u he elucida e wha such app ecia ion consis s in o Wi gens ein:
a om sa ou ing a pleasu e (ei he in he beau i ul, o some hing else), i is an ac i i y o
o ien ing onesel acco ding o an ideal ha is aken o belong o he objec o app ecia ion.
Tha ideal, howe e , is no some hing ha we can a icula e: i emains a hidden law. I will
conclude in a hi d s ep ha his is how Wi gens ein sough o esol e he pa adox o eeling
he di ec ion owa ds an absolu e, which one canno a icula e: he poin ing i sel should be
aken as su icien .
One o he mos s iking ea u es o Wi gens ein’s aes he ic hinking is his p eoccupa ion
wi h c i icizing psychological app oaches o ques ions o aes he ics:
People o en say ha aes he ics is a b anch o psychology. The idea is ha once
we a e mo e ad anced, e e y hing – all he mys e ies o A – will be unde s ood
by psychological expe imen s. Exceedingly s upid as he idea is, his is oughly i .
(LC, II.35)
Wi gens ein inds he idea s upid o wo ( ela ed) easons. Fi s , i mis akes a no ma i e
p ocess (gi ing and unde s anding pa icula easons o pe cei ing an aes he ic objec in
a pa icula way) o a pu ely causal a ai (ha ing pleasu e because o some ea u e o an

Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’ 77
objec ). Second, i is, again, a p oposal o impo he scien i ic me hod in o a ield o human
in e ac ion whe e i does no belong.
As o he i s eason, Wi gens ein is a pains o a gue ha he psychological pic u e o
aes he ic pe cei ing is misguided. I p eoccupies i sel wi h he pa icula likings o aes he ic
pe cipien s ( o example, ‘I like he colou scheme’, ‘ his pa o he song is my a ou i e’),
whe eas aes he ics only eally ge s going once we s a asking o he easons o a pa icula
liking: ‘The ques ion o Aes he ics is no : Do you like i ? Bu , i you do, why do you?’ (M, 9:27).
I ha is he case, psychology would indeed be ou o place, because he only kind o answe
ha i could gi e o he ques ion why would be a causal explana ion, and no a eason:
‘Why is he smell o oses so pleasan ?’
Wha so o an answe do you expec ?
(1) All he smells which ickle you nose in his way a e pleasan . This would be in e es -
ing o some people; & could sa is y a pe son who mean o ask ha ques ion.
(2) This answe would no emo e ou aes he ic puzzlemen . (M, 9:23)
Tha aes he ic puzzlemen (Why should i be his pa icula way o ickling he nose ha gi es
us such pleasu e?) canno be emo ed by psychology because i p esupposes a di e en way
o hinking abou he ma e en i ely. I would cons ue aes he ics as an en e p ise ying
o i s map he en i e y o all ou likings and hen explain hose likings in e ms o a single
causal ela ionship. Tha en e p ise, o Wi gens ein, mus ha e seemed like a chime a on a
pa wi h he ‘ he absolu e good’ concei ed o as a desc ibable s a e o a ai s.4
Hence, Wi gens ein’s c i ique o psychologism in aes he ics goes hand in hand wi h his
ejec ion o he ole o beau y in he same. In bo h his 1933 and 1938 lec u es on he opic
(M, 9:19; LC, I.8), Wi gens ein is a pains o poin ou ha aes he ic pe cei ing has no hing
necessa ily o e en p ima ily o do wi h deciding whe he hings a e ‘beau i ul’ o no . The
adi ional p eoccupa ion o aes he ics wi h he ques ion o beau y is misleading, in he i s
ins ance because i seems o imply ha aes he ic app ecia ion always, o e en ypically akes
a shape simila o ‘s anding be o e a pain ing and saying: “Tha is beau i ul.”’5 Tha is ob i-
ously no he case, bu mo e impo an ly, he p eoccupa ion wi h beau y seems o imply a
single sphe e o li e uni ied by one p inciple, he eeling o beau y, ha can consequen ly
be analysed as he cause o all he hings we happen o ake a liking o. Thus, wha happens
when we ind some hing ha emo es ou aes he ic puzzlemen is no necessa ily his o
ha eeling:
I’m now sa is ied; I’m in a s a e o equilib ium, no o ension.
This may be a good me apho ; bu he e isn’ one eeling which cha ac e ises he
housand di e en cases o equilib ium. (M, 9:31)
4
Wi gens ein’s an i-psychologism ex en s o eligious ma e s as well. In he same ein, o ins ance, he
ep oaches James Geo ge F aze who, in his The Golden Bough: A S udy in Magic and Religion (London: Palg a e
Macmillan, 1983), ga e (mo e o less) educ ionis explana ions o eligious i uals. Fo ins ance, he Bel ane
i es in Sco land, which he akes simply as a emnan o a i ual o human sac i ice because pa o he i ual
consis o p e ending o h ow someone in he i e. See M, pp. 328–30. Agains his, Wi gens ein a gues ha
his does no jus ice o he sel -unde s anding o pa icipan s in he i ual: ‘[…] p e ending o bu n is some hing
which has i s own eeling & i s own se iousness. And ha in o he cases a eal human being was bu n , only
shews ha all so s o di e en hings exis side by side’ (M, 9:8).
5
Ray Monk, Ludwig Wi gens ein: The Du y o Genius (London: Cape, 1990), 405.
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’78
Thus, Wi gens ein is no ejec ing ha beau y does no play any ole in aes he ics wha soe e ,
bu a he ha i should be he cen al ea u e o be analysed and explained scien i ically.
This b ings me o he second eason why Wi gens ein inds he idea o a psychological
science o aes he ics s upid. Sa donically, Wi gens ein says o such a science, ‘I suppose i
ough o include also wha so o co ee as es well’ (LC, II.2). I one is commi ed o he idea
ha aes he ics is abou he s u o which we ake a liking, how could you make a p incipled
di e ence be ween liking co ee and liking a symphony?6 Bu Wi gens ein wan s no only o
say ha i is a all o de o dis inguish be ween liking an a is ic objec and liking some o he
hing. He is also ying o show ha aes he ic app ecia ion need no consis in a liking a all:
I we ha e a ce ain a angemen o colou s & say i is beau i ul, & you sugges ha
wha his means is ha i gi es us pleasu e.
I ask: Why should we use so many di e en means o ge pleasu e?
Answe isn’ me ely ha you can’ ge aspa agus in win e ; bu ob iously ha wha
you wan is no me ely pleasu e bu a ce ain kind o pleasu e.
And i you wan a ce ain kind o pleasu e, e.g. ulips admi ed wi h pleasu e; why
shouldn’ you wan he ulips wi hou he pleasu e? (M, 9:18–19)
I migh seem odd o be in a si ua ion o admi ing he ulips wi hou aking pleasu e in
he admi a ion, bu Wi gens ein is no a guing ha his is o en wha ac ually happens
in aes he ic in e ac ions. Ra he , he is sugges ing ha he pleasu e we o en eel in aes-
he ic app ecia ion need no ha e any hing o do wi h how we hink o he ulips om an
aes he ic pe spec i e.7 In ac , Wi gens ein conside s he opposi e condi ion, (unpleasu -
able) aes he ic in e ac ions, o be all he mo e e ealing o wha i is we do in aes he ic
pe cei ing:
You design a doo and look a i and say: ‘Highe , highe , highe […] oh, al igh .’
(Ges u e) Wha is his? Is i an exp ession o con en ?
Pe haps he mos impo an hing in connec ion wi h aes he ics is wha may be called
aes he ic eac ions, e.g. discon en , disgus , discom o . The exp ession o discon en
says: ‘Make i highe […] oo low! […] do some hing o his.’ (LC, II.10)
The poin o wha Wi gens ein calls ‘di ec ed discom o ’ (LC, II.10–16) is no o a gue (agains
all a ailable e idence es i ying o he con a y) ha aes he ic pe cei ing is ac ually a mo e o
less pain ul ac i i y. Ra he , Wi gens ein wan s o show ha by ocusing on eelings alone,
we lea e ou he mo e in e es ing hal o he phenomenon we a e ying o unde s and.
Those eelings a e di ec ed o some hing: an ideal o no m o which he objec o pe cep ion
is supposed o co espond. And i is his ideal which is eally wha is impo an .
In o he wo ds, Wi gens ein is a guing ha aes he ic in e ac ions a e in e p e a i e p ac-
ices, ways in which we y o unde s and he objec app ecia ed (Wha is i ha i belongs o?
6
See Rhees’s no es abou he quo ed commen : ‘I is ha d o ind bounda ies’ (LC, II.2).
7
I migh be possible, o ins ance, o ind i an aes he ic sho coming ha ulips a e so pleasu able. See as well
his ema k, in a la e lec u e, on no wan ing o lis en o a g ea piece o music: ‘I’m no going [ o hea he music]
[…] because I can’ s and i s g ea ness: i.e. i any hing, i is disag eeable’ (M, 9:26).
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’ 79
Wha is i s pa adigm?), a he han sa ou he eelings inci ed.8 And his, indeed, one can see
mo e clea ly in he case o a discom o , a he han when we pe cei e wi h pleasu e. A e
all, once we ha e al eady ealized he ideal, he sense o di ec ion owa ds i is also los . The
u gency o ying o unde s and is emo ed, and wha we expe ience is i s and o emos a
eeling o sa is ac ion. Mo eo e , i is his being di ec ed owa ds an ideal ha psychology
can ne e make sense o . Because he psychological way o hinking can only yield causes:
‘Aes he ic easons a e gi en in he o m: ge ing nea e o an ideal o a he om i . Whe eas
Psychology gi es causes why people ha e an ideal’ (M, 9:36).
Wha ma e s in aes he ic in e ac ions a e ideals, no causal ela ions. O cou se, one could
say ha i is p ecisely i s being emo ed om he ideal ha is he cause o one’s discom o
wi h a pa icula objec o app ecia ion. Bu one can only say his in a sense ha sub ly di e s
om a psychological s udy in o he causes o one’s discom o :
Saying you know he cause o you discom o could mean wo hings.
(1) I p edic co ec ly ha i you lowe he doo , I will be sa is ied.
(2) Bu ha when in ac I say: “Too high!” ‘Too high!’ is in his case no conjec u e. Is
‘Too high’ compa able wi h ‘I hink I had oo many oma oes oday’? (LC, II.14)
One would expec Wi gens ein o make a di e ence be ween ‘e icien ’ and ‘ inal’ cause, ha
is, be ween he biological p ocesses ha make one hink ha one has had oo many oma oes
on he one hand, and he ideal o no m ( he ‘ elos’) o which I am di ec ed in se ling he co -
ec heigh o a doo on he o he . Bu he dis inc ion ac ually cu s deepe , a leas when i
comes o aes he ic pe cei ing. He says, namely, ha no only a e we no posi ing an e icien
cause o ou discom o when we say ha he doo is oo high, he says ha we a e no making
any conjec u e wha soe e .
Conside he ollowing, elucida ing ema k published in Cul u e and Value, wi h ega d o
he o e u e o he ope a Figa o:
The ‘necessi y’ wi h which he second idea succeeds he i s . (O e u e o Figa o.)
No hing could be mo e idio ic han o say i ’s ‘pleasing’ o hea he second a e he
i s ! – Bu he pa adigm acco ding o which e e y hing he e is igh is ce ainly
obscu e. (CV, p. 65, emphasis in o iginal)
I is no because i would p oduce pleasu e, ha he o de ing o ideas appea s necessa y. Bu
nei he is he pa adigm, o he no m o igh ness in ques ion, a clea one. O cou se, some-
imes, we ha e a clea idea abou aes he ic no ms, o example, he co ec wid h o a lapel on
a sui jacke (LC, II.8), he ideal ea u es o a ace acco ding o he Ancien G eeks, and so on.
These no ms a e philosophically i ial: i is me ely es ablished, socio-his o ically de e mined
8
This is whe e Wi gens ein’s app oach di e s om Kan ian app oaches acco ding o which aes he ic expe iences
a e cons i u ed by a unique kind o (disin e es ed) eeling. Wi gens ein does no deny ha eelings migh be
impo an in ying o unde s and some hing aes he ically. On he basis o he passages quo ed abo e, howe e ,
i is clea ha acco ding o him, no eeling amoun s o a sine qua non o aes he ic expe iences (a amilia com-
mi men , on he o he hand, o Kan ian aes he ics). A he same ime, howe e , i is impo an o no e ha he
di e ence be ween Wi gens ein and Kan may no be all ha s a k. One migh a gue, o ins ance, ha unde -
s anding aes he ic easons and expe iencing aes he ic eelings a e always in e wined momen s o one and he
same p ocess o aking on an aes he ic a i ude, o o e lec ing and/o judging aes he ically. Fo Kan oo, a e
all, he eeling o disin e es ed pleasu e canno be hough in isola ion om he ee play o he (cogni i e) acul-
ies o he imagina ion and he unde s anding. Ge ing clea e on he ela ion be ween eeling and unde s and-
ing in Kan and Wi gens ein, Kan ians and Wi gens einians, is a opic o ano he occasion. Thanks o Richa d
Eld idge o p essing his objec ion and poin ing he way o u he esea ch.
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’80
cul u al sensibili ies ha make i he case ha ‘a sui lapel should be his long’. S a emen s
such as hese a e simply abou ela i e alue and, like he s a emen poin ing he igh way
o G an ches e , hey can be ew i en as s a emen s abou ma e s o ac (‘gi en ha lapels
o his leng h a e all he age nowadays…’).
On he o he hand, wha is eally a s ake, aes he ically speaking, is no becoming sa is ied
ha a p ede e mined o p ede e minable ideal has been ealized. We see his p ecisely in he
case o awe-inspi ing a wo ks like he o e u e o Figa o, o a symphony by Bee ho en: we
a e s uck by an undeniable sense o he necessi y o he composi ion, wi hou being able o
answe he ques ion: ‘necessa y, o wha ?’
Bu wha is a s ake, hen? I becomes emp ing o hink ha g ea a does no abide
by any no ms we a e amilia wi h, because i posi s i s own s anda ds. Joachim Schul e, in
his eading o Wi gens ein’s aes he ics, b ie ly en e ains his idea be o e dismissing i . He
a gues ha some hings ha would show up as aul s in an o dina y musical composi ion,
could also show up as an in ended and meaning ul s oke o genius in a sublimely w i en
piece o music.9 O cou se, Wi gens ein would a gue ha a wo k ha posi s i s own s anda ds
canno con lic wi h hem. And i i canno con lic wi h hem, i is also w ong o say ha i
can ollow hem: he en i e no ma i e dimension alls away. Schul e esol es his ension by
a guing ha he s anda d o sublime, o emendous wo ks is no ac ually a s anda d o igh -
ness o co ec ness.10 This is no , I belie e, he mos ui ul way o ead Wi gens ein, no in
he las place because he does, in ac , alk abou he igh ness o g ea wo ks o a (such as
he o e u e o Figa o in he passage quo ed abo e), as Schul e also no es.
Ins ead, I wan o sugges ha he impo an hing abou aes he ic in e ac ions, inciden ally
he hing ha comes o he o e d ama ically in g ea a wo ks, is ha we a e sa is ied abou
igh ness o he wo k wi hou any knowledge o he no m in ques ion. When Wi gens ein
speaks o he ‘obscu e pa adigm o igh ness’, i becomes emp ing o hink o an ideal model,
an U -ope a, om which all g ea ope a’s de i e hei g ea ness. O cou se, he e is no such
hing, bu he eeling emains ha g ea wo ks o a poin in ha di ec ion, ha i is because
o such a no m o absolu e alue ha we belie e hem o be igh , o absolu ely success ul
( a he han co ec o his o ha pu pose). Hence, he ollowing c yp ic ema k in he lec-
u es on aes he ics om 1933:
Goe he in Me amo phose de P lanzen, sugges s ha all plan s a e a ia ions on a
heme. Wha is he heme?
Goe he says ‘They all poin o a hidden law.’ Bu you wouldn’ ask: Wha is he law?
Tha hey poin , is all he e is o i . (M, 9:33)
The hidden law ha explains he a ia ions o plan s, like he obscu e pa adigm ha explains
he necessa y o de ing o musical ideas in Figa o’s o e u e, canno i sel become clea . Bu
nei he is his necessa y o us o expe ience he i ingness, o success, o he o e u e.11
In ha expe ience, wha is a ailable o he unde s anding is some hing like he judgemen
9
Joachim Schul e, ‘Äs he isch ich ig’, in Cho und Gese z: Wi gens ein im Kon ex (F ank u : Suh kamp, 1990),
80.
10 Ibid. Schul e bases himsel on LC, I.23: ‘In ce ain s yles in A chi ec u e a doo is co ec , and he hing is you
app ecia e i . Bu in he case o a Go hic Ca hed al wha we do is no a all o ind i co ec – i plays an en i ely
di e en ole wi h us.’
11 See Schul e, ‘Äs he isch ich ig’, 81: ‘[…] de sp ingende Punk is , daß [die Ou e ü e zu Figa o] o z de
Unmöglichkei eine explizi en Fo mulie ung gelingen kann mi zu eilen (und sei es noch so indi ek ), wa um
die Ab olge no wendig, na ü lich ode ich ig e schein .’
Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’ 87
Compe ing In e es s
The au ho has no compe ing in e es s o decla e.
Re e ences
Al ie i, Cha les. Reckoning wi h he Imagina ion: Wi gens ein and he Aes he ics o
Li e a y Expe ience. I haca, NY: Co nell Uni e si y P ess, 2015. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.7591/9781501700552
Ca ell, S anley. ‘Aes he ic P oblems o Mode n Philosophy.’ In Mus We Mean Wha We Say?,
68–90. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9781316286616.007
––––––. ‘The A ailabili y o Wi gens ein’s La e Philosophy.’ In Mus We Mean Wha We Say?,
41–67. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9781316286616.006
––––––. ‘The In es iga ions’ E e yday Aes he ics o I sel .’ In The Li e a y Wi gens ein, edi ed
by John Gibson and Wol gang Hueme , 21–33. New Yo k: Rou ledge, 2004.
––––––. Mus We Mean Wha We Say?: A Book o Essays. 2nd ed. Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess, 2002. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9781316286616
F ank, Man ed. The Philosophical Founda ions o Ea ly Ge man Roman icism. T ansla ed by
Elizabe h Millán-Zaibe . Albany: S a e Uni e si y o New Yo k P ess, 2004.
F aze , James Geo ge. The Golden Bough: A S udy in Magic and Religion. London: Palg a e
Macmillan, 1983. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-1-349-00635-9
Isenbe g, A nold. ‘C i ical Communica ion.’ Philosophical Re iew 58 (1949): 330–34. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2182081
Kusch, Ma in. ‘Wi gens ein’s On Ce ain y and Rela i ism.’ In Analy ic and Con inen al
Philosophy: Me hods and Pe spec i es; P oceedings o he 37 h In e na ional Wi gens ein
Symposium, edi ed by Ha ald A. Wil sche and Sonja Rino ne -K eidl, 29–46. Be lin: De
G uy e , 2016.
Monk, Ray. Ludwig Wi gens ein: The Du y o Genius. London: Cape, 1990.
Mulhall, S ephen. ‘Wi gens ein on Religious Belie .’ In The Ox o d Handbook o Wi gens ein,
edi ed by Oska i Kuusela and Ma ie McGinn, 755–74. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess,
2011. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/ox o dhb/9780199287505.003.0034
No alis. Fich e S udies. Edi ed and ansla ed by Jane Knelle . Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess, 2003. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9781139164382
Schlegel, F ied ich. ‘A henäum F agmen s (1798).’ In Schul e-Sasse e al., Theo y as P ac ice,
319–26.
––––––. ‘Dialogue on Poesy (1799).’ In Schul e-Sasse e al.,Theo y as P ac ice, 180–94.
––––––. ‘F agmen s on Li e a u e and Poesy (1797).’ In Schul e-Sasse e al., Theo y as P ac ice,
329–35.
––––––. ‘In oduc ion o he T anscenden al Philosophy (1800).’ In Schul e-Sasse e al.,
Theo y as P ac ice, 240–67.
Schul e, Joachim. ‘Äs he isch ich ig.’ In Cho und Gese z, 73–88.
––––––. Cho und Gese z: Wi gens ein im Kon ex . F ank u : Suh kamp, 1990.
––––––. ‘S il agen.’ In Cho und Gese z, 59–72.
Schul e-Sasse, Jochen, Haynes Ho ne, And eas Michel, Elizabe h Mi man, Assenka Oksilo ,
Lisa C. Roe zel, and Ma y R. S and, eds. and ans. Theo y as P ac ice: A C i ical An hology
o Ea ly Ge man Roman ic W i ings. Minneapolis: Uni e si y o Minneso a P ess, 1997.
Shelley, James. ‘The Concep o he Aes he ic.’ In S an o d Encyclopedia o Philosophy, edi ed
by Edwa d N. Zal a. Win e 2017 ed. S an o d Uni e si y, 1997–. h ps://pla o.s an o d.
edu/en ies/aes he ic-concep /.
Waismann, F ied ich. ‘No es on Talks wi h Wi gens ein.’ Philosophical Re iew 74 (1965):
12–16. Abb e ia ed: NTW. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2183527

Ve donscho : ‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’88
Wi gens ein, Ludwig. Cul u e and Value: A Selec ion om he Pos humous Remains. 2nd ed.
Edi ed by Geo g Hen ik on W igh and Alois Pichle . T ansla ed by Pe e Winch. Ox o d:
Blackwell, 1998. Abb e ia ed: CV.
––––––. ‘A Lec u e on E hics.’ Philosophical Re iew 74 (1965): 3–12. Abb e ia ed: LE. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2183526
––––––. Lec u es and Con e sa ions on Aes he ics, Psychology and Religious Belie . Edi ed by
Cy il Ba e . Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess, 1967. Abb e ia ed: LC.
––––––. On Ce ain y. Edi ed by G. E. M. Anscombe and Geo g Hen ik on W igh . T ansla ed
by Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe. Ox o d: Blackwell, 1974. Abb e ia ed: OC.
––––––. Wi gens ein’s Lec u es: Camb idge 1930–1933; F om he No es o G. E. Moo e. Edi ed
by Da id G. S e n, B ian Roge s, and Gab iel Ci on. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess, 2016. Abb e ia ed: M.
How o ci e his a icle: Ve donscho , Clin on Pe e . ‘‘
Tha
They Poin Is All The e Is o I ’:
Wi gens ein’s Roman icis Aes he ics.’
Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics
LVIII/XIV,
no. 1 (2021): pp. 72–88. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.33134/eeja.222
Submi ed: 22 Sep embe 2019 Accep ed: 15 July 2020 Published: 17 Ma ch 2021
Copy igh : © 2021 The Au ho (s). This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (CC-BY 4.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed use,
dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed.
See h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/.
Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics
is a pee - e iewed
open access jou nal published by Helsinki Uni e si y P ess in
coope a ion wi h he Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y in
P ague.
OPEN ACCESS