Thursday, November 15, 2007

5.6331 The field of vision has precisely [nämlich] not a form such as this:

egg outline, small circle inside sharp end labelled `Eye'

The eye and the field do not belong to the same ‘space’, although it is easy to lose sight [ho ho] of this kind of thing when doing philosophy. We confuse logic for metaphysics, one language-game for another.

Friedlander (p. 116): “From the point of view of representation there is no limit whatsoever. This is the point of Wittgenstein’s analogy between the visual field and the field of experience as such.”

Compare Schopenhauer, The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason trans. E. F. J. Payne, 1974, p. 96: “Thus since our power of vision reaches equally in all directions, we really see everything as a hollow sphere in whose centre is our eye.”


luciano said...

your comment is very good. People here talk about an eye that is or is not inside its field of vision, which is a ridiculousness. Wittgenstein never depicted a connery as an eye inside its visual field (thus, the picture here edited is a fake). Please, see Acta Analytica, July 2013: “A Significant ‘False Perception’ of Wittgenstein’s Draft on Mind’s Eye”
For the right text and image, see
(by the way, I think that Wittgenstein is also against Schopenhauer, because the eye IS NOT SOMETHING in the centre)

Duncan Richter said...

Yes, Wittgenstein does seem to be against Schopenhauer here.