Hi GPT4! On a philosophy forum, a poster alluded to Wittgenstein's comment that "nothing is hidden." My friend WA took objection to this by asking the rhetorical question: "So as a corollary - if nothing is hidden there is nothing in need of discovery?" Replying to his objection, I suggested: "I think a better lesson to be drawn from Wittgenstein's point is that what impedes understanding oftentimes isn't the lack of data but rather the fact that we aren't looking at the phenomenon in the right way. I say "oftentimes" because in the realm of empirical science, more data often is needed. But Wittgenstein, and also Ryle, Strawson and Austin, were insistent that, when intelligence and mindedness are at issue, what leads us to be puzzled by the phenomena is our tendency to subsume them under theoretical categories that just aren't apt at making sense of them. They weren't targeting science but rather scientism." WA then replied: "As I also am inclined to do. Perhaps what I meant is, even though nothing is hidden, this is also not something that everyone can understand. Philosophy is an antidote to the lack of wisdom, but that lack is the want of something. Maybe that is lack is one of perspective but that perspective not something that we all have." I am unsure what he means, especially with his last sentence. (I assume there may be an "is" missing between "perspective" and "now.") Can you better than me intuit what it is that he may be driving at?
It seems that WA is acknowledging your point about the importance of perspective when it comes to understanding philosophical problems. He agrees with you that, according to Wittgenstein and the philosophers you mentioned, the issue often lies in our tendency to apply inappropriate theoretical categories to certain phenomena, leading to confusion or misunderstanding.
When WA says, "Maybe that lack is one of perspective but that perspective not something that we all have," he seems to be suggesting that the ability to adopt the right perspective or framework to understand these phenomena is not something that everyone possesses. He might be implying that while philosophy serves as an antidote to the lack of wisdom, it is not always easily accessible or comprehensible to everyone. In this sense, even if nothing is hidden, not everyone may be able to see or understand what is in plain sight due to their inability to adopt the correct perspective or framework for understanding.
Might he not rather be hinting at the fact that the lack of the "proper" (philosophical) perspective is somehow part of the human condition and hence the attempt by the philosopher to supply what is lacking is bound to be found unsatisfactory to the people who are seeking a more profound, or less deflationary, answer?
Yes, that's a plausible interpretation as well. In this case, WA could be suggesting that the lack of the "proper" philosophical perspective is an inherent aspect of the human condition, and people are naturally inclined to seek more profound or explanatory answers to their questions. Consequently, when philosophers provide deflationary or simplified explanations that require adopting a different perspective, these answers may not satisfy those who desire more substantial or profound explanations.
Under this interpretation, WA might be highlighting the challenge that philosophers face in addressing the questions and confusions that arise from our inherent tendencies as humans. This could serve as a reminder that, even if nothing is hidden, not everyone may be open to or satisfied with the philosophical perspectives that can help bring clarity to their understanding.
And then, he may also be meaning something else. He'll soon let us know. Thanks you for your assistance!
You're welcome! It's great that you're engaging in a thought-provoking conversation with WA. Please feel free to reach out if you need any further assistance or have any other questions. I'm here to help!