a few remarks on paul horwich's wittgenstein thing in the nytimes. first of all, in my experience, philosophers talk in hushed tones of reverence about wittgenstein rather than hating on him, but this may be my particular milieu coming up: uva was center of wittgensteinianism; i was more worried about the cult than the haters. also, the whole damn century was dedicated to the end of philosophy, the grand metaphysical project: nietzsche said it was over, carnap, dewey, heidegger, rorty, derrida; philosophy in the twentieth century was an interminable declaration of its own end. so wittgenstein wasn't alone in that.
now, we ought to think of philosophy not as a science but as an art (however, i also don't think you can do science without philosophy, and science too has aspects of art). so, you wouldn't say that we've been doing that sculpture stuff since the greeks and we haven't come up with the sculpture that makes all other sculptures ridiculous: the final irrefutable sculpture, so we should give that crap up. the point is definitely not to put the thing to rest, but to make the next interesting move. the point is precisely for it not to come to an end, and just practice it and become absorbed in it. art has to be sufficient to the full extent of many long lives.
as to the nature of truth: well, i have knocked this sucker down once and for all in the grandest non-deflationary style. horwich will just have to wait for entanglements haha!
