Listening to the guys and Philosophy Bro on the last episode, I want to interject that actually I see Wittgenstein as a bridge between analytic and continental philosophy for reasons beyond his being Austrian. What he brackets out and why is crucial to his project, which does become “anti-philosophical” in a broad sense. Anti-philosophy is defined by both Alain Badiou and Boris Groys both, separately, definite anti-philosophy as a philosophical critique of a philosophical enterprise through other means.
1. A linguistic, logical, genealogical critique of the statement of philosophy; a deposing of the category of truth, an unraveling of pretensions of philosophy to constitute itself as theory. In order to do so, antiphilosophy often delves into the resources the sophists exploit as well. In the case of Nietzsche, this operation bears the name “overturning of all values,” struggle against the Plato-disease, combatant grammar of signs and types.
2. The recognition of the fact that philosophy, in the final instance, cannot be reduced to its discursive appearance, its proportions, its fallacious theoretical exterior. Philosophy is an act, of which the fabulations about “truth” are the clothing, the propaganda, the lies…
3. The appeal made, against the philosophical act, to another, radically new act, which will either be called philosophical as well, thereby creating an equivocation (through which the little philosopher” consents with delight to the spit that covers his body) or else, more honestly, supraphilosophical or even aphilosophical. This act without precedent destroys the philosophical act, all the while clarifying its noxious character. . .
Can we recognize these three operations in Wittgenstein’s oeurve?”
While the title of the book gives Badiou’s opinion: I can’t decide if I really believe Wittgenstein actually does think that all philosophy is null, epistemology is needless, and it’s just language games. For all the complaints about Derrida’s obscurantism and sophistic textual take on philosophy, if that is who we take Wittgenstein in the final instance, Wittgenstein is much more of a deconstructionist than Derrida or Nietzsche. Yet, I don’t know if even Wittgenstein thinks the fly will ever totally be out of the bottle.
What do you readers think? Is Badiou on to something? Is Wittgenstein anti-philosophical? If the claim that Wittgenstein ended philosophy as it was known then is true, perhaps there is more than a little hint of truth in Badiou’s claim.