‘That They Point Is All There Is to It’: Wittgenstein’s Romanticist Aesthetics

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