Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

"Jewcentric rambling"?

It's not clear to me that information about the religious background of Wittgenstein's family (as removed in this edit by Ernham) has no place in the article. I'm not Jewish myself (lest I be accused of "Jewcentricity") but I think that, in the context of late nineteenth/early twentieth century Austria, a family's Jewish background (or religious background generally) is interesting and relevant. garik 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that is NOT the "religious background" of his family. It's all either made up or has no place the article. Ernham 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see - well, if it's made up, then of course it has no place in the article. The edit summary didn't make clear that the veracity of the claim was at issue. If it were an accurate description of his family background though, I'd see no reason to remove it. garik 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A combination of veracity and irrelvance, actually, not exclusively one or the other. I'll probably add back a more concise version.Ernham 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. garik 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't sound too good to me. The fact that Wittgenstein's family was originally Jewish and converted to Christianity is neither made up nor irrelevant. Rather, it's a well-known and totally uncontroversial fact, which can be found in any book about his life. Furthermore, considering that so much of his later thought is concerned with the potential mishaps involved in attempts at communication between conflicting or opposed forms of life, it seems entirely relevant to a broader understanding of the genesis of his thought--to say nothing about the very large role played by questions of religion throughout his life, a fact which mitigates any objections to the effect that his childhood household was generally secular in inclination. His blood type was certainly irrelevant to an understanding of his thought, as was his shoe size and his taste in food. But how is the religious background of a major philosopher's family irrelevant? This is a rather slanted and arbitrary edit, and it's really asking to be reverted. Buck Mulligan 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. What sounded good to me was putting back a concise version. I haven't read enough to know whether the details are accurate or not, but if they are, they most certainly merit reinstatement, more concisely or not. If you have the sources to back it up (that should put off future removers) then I'd replace the information. garik 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree, Garik. I'll try to fix it up with something both relevant and properly sourced by tomorrow night. Buck Mulligan 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernham's use of the offensive language "Jewcentric rambling" to purpotedly justify the removal of highly relevant biographical material suggests a less than neutral POV; indeed, characterizing such highly relevant biographical details, in such terms, borders on, if not indeed constituting manifestly clear, antisemitism. Accordingly, WP:NPOV and WP:Vandalism apply here. Do I need to remind anyone here that after the Anschluss took place, Wittgenstein's family was marked for death for being Jewish?--Lance ^talk 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so scary. "marked for death"? That's absurdly laughable and merely demonstrates your complete ignorance regarding him and his family. His family was never "marked for death", and they had absolutely no fear of the Nazis. Maybe you should wash some of the ignorance off yourself and find out why, hmmm?Ernham 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration, Lance. I was planning to rewrite the thing with sources and all the rest, but the Christmas season has gotten the better of me for the time being. I also agree that Ernham's comments are, to say the least, rather odd if not downright offensive. Happy holidays to everybody. Buck Mulligan 02:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also the passages in "Culture and Value" where he claimed (probably correctly) to be "the greatest of Jewish thinkers" and in "Recollections of Wittgenstein" where Drury reports him as saying that his thought was "100% Hebraic". Clearly his Jewishness mattered to Wittgenstein, since he felt driven to "confess" it to his Cambridge colleagues. Anyone denying its relevance ought to read a few more books.

Sorry to disturb your little day dream, but Wittgenstein did not at all EVER consider himself Jewish, or ever claim anything about "100% hebriac". He never practiced as a Jew, his immediate family never identified at all as Jews; neither of his parents ever practiced Judaism. By Talmudic Jewish rules themselves, he cannot be considered Jewish, as his mother was not Jewish.Ernham 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from p.5 of Monk's biography: "Wittgenstein's adult aunt asked her brother Louis if the rumous she had heard about their Jewish origins were true. "Pur sang, Milly", he replied, "pur sang". "The family, that is, regarded itself as "pure-bloodedly" Jewish. The Stonborough family, into which Wittgenstein's sister married, recently filed a claim against the Austrian government for assets seized from Wittgenstein's sister Margarete (as a Jew), following the Anschluss. That is, if the suit has any merit, then Wittgenstein's sister was Jewish, ergo he was too. Wittgenstein "confessed" to his Jewishness at Cambridge (Monk, Ray. Wittgenstein:The Duty of Genius, Jonathan Cape, London 1990, p.369.). He claimed that his thought was "100 percent Hebraic" ("my thoughts are one hundred per cent Hebraic", Recollections of Wittgenstein, edited by Rush Rhees, Oxford University Press, 1984, p.161). He claimed that he was the greatest of Jewish thinkers ("Even the greatest of Jewish thinkers is no more than talented. (Myself for instance)": Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Culture and Value, Blackwell, Oxford 1980, p.18.) Despite the fact that Wittgenstein described himself as Jewish in “confessions” to colleagues at Cambridge, some writers deny that Wittgenstein was Jewish on the grounds that his mother’s mother, Maria Stallner, from what is now Cilje in Slovenia, was not Jewish. She too, however, despite her baptismal status as a Roman Catholic, also had Jewish maternal antecedents (through Therese Zöhrer – born 1797 in Steinbruckl - wife of Johann Stallner) and the Wittgensteins were indeed “pur sang” through matrilineal descent, which is all that matters halachically. Wittgenstein asked to make Aliyah to what was then British Mandated Palestine with Paul Engelmann in the 1920s, writing "Please take me with you". My book "The Jew of Linz" establishes that Wittgenstein was even the target of Adolf Hitler's very first recorded anti-Semitic vitriol. (The argument is summarized in the Wikipedia article The_Jew_of_Linz). Wittgenstein's Jewishness is not something incidental, but rather is fundamental to understanding the Holocaust and the history of the twentieth century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Heh. The Jew of Linz, huh? Haha. Ok. What a waste of my time. What's next, Protocols of the Elders of Zion? His mother wasn't Jewish. Get over it.Ernham 12:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it very peculiar that, in spite of the evidence presented in this discussion (most of it entirely mainstream and uncontroversial), Ernham continues to use this page as a forum for what are pretty clearly his personal resentments and obsessions. Unless I had seen it take place here myself, I wonder if I would even have believed that somebody could get so worked up over something like this. At any rate: Ernham, you really need to take a few deep breaths and rein in the rhetoric a bit, because this "Elders of Zion" nonsense from your last post is hovering very close to the edge of trolling. Let's all try to be grownups, shall we? Buck Mulligan 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to Buck Mulligan for his comment. Ernham is certainly getting tedious. All readers of this section should visit the site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020417222947/http://www.mckennacuneo.com/practice/Litigation/AustrianPropertyComplaint.PDF

(Sorry about the length of the address, but it's been archived.) It is the complaint of Austrian Jews as plaintiffs, against the Austrian government for assets seized from them under the Nazi racial laws. Please note the passage on p.6, stating that the plaintiffs are "Austrian Jews". Readers should then read the document (or search it) for the names "Stonborough", "Salzer" and "Wittgenstein". They will find Wittgenstein's sisters and brother (and descendants) named as plaintiffs and thus identifying themselves as Jews. If they were Jewish, then so was Wittgenstein and so was his mother. Ernham might like to explain how he knows the family was wrong to be party to the suit, and specifically how he knows that Wittgenstein's mother was NOT halachically Jewish given the clear evidence of the suit. In particular, I would welcome him posting his own genealogical researches on Therese Zöhrer, should he have done any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

More nonsense. The issue regarding "hebraic thought" examined in context means something completely different than has been insinuated above. He was referring to the bible and he clearly knows the difference between Hebraic" and "Judaic"(unfortunately, you probably do not). He was talking about how he felt what we do in this life essentially have consequences that carry with us into the hereafter, in contrast to the ideas held by the guy whom he was speaking with. So, he was speaking in a biblical sense(he actually refers to the bible, not the Torah, btw), he was referring to one aspect of his beliefs not his thoughts in general. Your claism about his mother is nonsense. His mother's mother was born and died a catholic. Can you prove otherwise? Mother wasn't Jewish, he never identified as Jewish, he wasn't raised Jewish. He wasn't Jewish by hardly any measure at all once you cut through the tangled web some of you try to weave.Ernham 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since "the guy whom he was speaking with" (ernham's expression) was M. O'C. Drury, who came to Cambridge for ordination as an Anglican priest, I can't see that ernham could be quite right about this. Drury would NOT have denied that what we do in this life has consequences for the hereafter. Perhaps ernham might expand his argument a little more here for sake of the more slow-to-see readers.

Now, on Wittgenstein's mother, Ernham is relying on her baptism as a Catholic to argue that she wasn't Jewish and challenges me to prove otherwise. I have already demonstrated that Wittgenstein's siblings/descendants claimed (as recently as a 2002 lawsuit) to be Jewish, at least for the purpose of regaining assets extorted from them by the Nazis, and that if their claims are true, then Wittgenstein was Jewish as was his mother. (Nobody is denying, incidentally, that the family professed Christianity publicly.) That Wittgenstein's mother was halachically Jewish is demonstrated by her descent from Therese Zohrer, whose biography is available from the University of Vienna. (See http://www.univie.ac.at/biografiA/daten/text/namen/z.htm.

The University of Vienna website offers a postal address in Karl Lueger Strasse, no less - named after its famed antisemitic mayor - for further enquiries. A postage stamp to obtain her biography - which is not posted on the Web - will cost ernham about a dollar.)

I am constrained somewhat in providing detailed source material in that I have a book coming out, dealing with this and other matters, but Wittgenstein was as Jewish as Freud, Marx or Einstein. That is, regardless of their religious PRACTICE, they were "pur sang" Jewish by DESCENT. Since Wittgenstein is in any case on record as having stated to his Cambridge colleagues that he was Jewish, ernham has rather a hard row to hoe in denying it, methinks. We might also recall the matter of the 1.7 tonnes of gold Hitler extorted from the Wittgensteins in August 1939, as ransom for the Wittgenstein sisters. (See "Wittgenstein's Poker" for details.) If they were NOT Jewish, this amount (circa $50,000,000 in modern values) would not have been necessary. But Wittgenstein was not only halachically Jewish, he was also THE Jew, the one historians have been seeking for sixty years, who occasioned Hitler's anti-Semitism. Hitler, that is, was at school with the son of Karl Wittgenstein,steel magnate, partner of the Rothschilds, richest Jew in central Europe and perhaps, at that time, in the world. "Wittgenstein was a Catholic" is a canard, admittedly often repeated, so ernham does have some excuse. But even stout Anglican Drury (who organised his Christian burial) was tormented afterwards by doubt that he had done the right thing. (See "Recollections of Wittgenstein".) Someone somewhere, ought to sing Kaddish for Wittgenstein. He deserves reburial on Mt Herzl. If ernham can accept that Einstein, Marx and Freud were Jewish, he oughtn't to balk at Wittgenstein. A lot of Jews, one might say, can think real, real good, and this particular one managed to bring down the Reich. I gently plead with ernham, please spend that dollar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberley Cornish (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

You keep bringing up non-related garbage. The nazi's interpretation of who is Jewish has no bearing on who is Jewish. That litigation has nothing to do with this. I find it so amazingly funny that there are such ethnocentric bigots running around wikipedia. I really wonder if there would be a "flock" here arguing to the bitter end that because half of his great grandparents were Jewish(ignoring that even they were all converted to Christianity) that he is "Jewish" if he were a serial killer or genocidal tyrant. He never identified as Jewish. His mother was not Jewish. The claims of being "pur sang" are easily demonstrated as false by examinging his maternal grandfather, so I can tell you straight out wherever you got that garbage quote from is an entirely bogus source. But, of course, it confirms your own bogus hypothesis, so you stick with it. I plead with you to even bother to read anything he wrote, because he has next nothing to do with Jews or Jewry, your ethnocentric wet dreams notwithstanding. oh, and the fact you aren't even aware of the actual conversation he was having when he mention "100% hebraic" is pretty shocking because you obviously have not checked any of your "facts". Who knows what kind of idiotic world you come from when you make a statment as stupid as LW took down the third reich(or whatever the hell "reich" you were dreaming about). I hope your book is related to your psychosis and nothing else. For the non bigots in here that actually want to know about the exchange where he mentioned "100% hebraic": Drury's actualy comment, "I had been reading Origin before. Origin taught that at the end of time there would be a final restitution of all things. That even Satan and the fallen angels would be restored to their former glory. This was a conception that appealed to me – but it was at once condemned as heretical. Wittgenstein's response: “Of course it was rejected. It would make nonsense of everything else. If what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with. Your religious ideas have always seemed to me more Greek than biblical. Whereas my thoughts are one hundred per cent Hebraic.”

And as far as the comment about "himself included", I would really have to see the comment in context. All I know about that quote seems to be that it was "discovered" after his death, thus highly suspect. I don't expect much out of someone who thinks "the Jew of Linz" as an informative source, however. Next you will share with me a Miss Cleo quote.Ernham 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernham writes:

1. "He never identified as Jewish".

I have already provided chapter and verse that he did, "confessing" the same to his Cambridge colleagues. "Recollections of Wittgenstein" contains further records of his "confessions" to Fania Pascal to this effect. In addition, I have provided sources showing that family members, including his uncle, his brother and sisters, considered themselves to be Jewish. I would ask Ernham not to keep ignoring these references.

2. "His mother was not Jewish".

I have provided the source that his mother WAS Jewish by descent through the maternal line. Whatever Ernham might think about this being irrelevant, it is the only thing that matters so far as Jews themselves are concerned. That is, Wittgenstein not only claimed to be Jewish; any Rabbinical authority would also recognise his claim was correct, given his matrilineal descent back to a Jewish female ancestor.

3. "The claims of being "pur sang" are easily demonstrated as false by examinging his maternal grandfather"

The religious affiliation of the grandfather is an irrelevancy under Jewish religious law. But surely Ernham must in any case see a difficulty here in asserting his own opinion over that of Wittgenstein's uncle, who was in a better position to actually KNOW?

3. "that garbage quote from is an entirely bogus source",

The quote by Wittgenstein's uncle that the Wittgenstein's Jewishness was "pur sang" is given in both the standard Monk and McGuinness biographies. If it really is garbage, we need some further evidence apart from Ernham's mere dismissal of it. So far his dismissal appears based on nothing so much as a refusal to admit that Wittgenstein might actually have been Jewish after all.

4. "And as far as the comment about "himself included", I would really have to see the comment in context. All I know about that quote seems to be that it was "discovered" after his death, thus highly suspect".

Well ... it's in "Culture and Value" on the page I quoted, just as I quoted it. Ernham owes us an account of why he thinks it suspect, apart from the mere fact that it disproves what he claims. One trusts he is not slurring Wittgenstein's literary executors.

5. "I don't expect much out of someone who thinks "the Jew of Linz" as an informative source, however. Next you will share with me a Miss Cleo quote."

Any discussion of "The Jew of Linz" should really be on the Wikipedia page "The_Jew_of_Linz". Should Ernham have any intelligent criticisms to make of its specific arguments, rather than sweeping blasts of dismissal, however, he is welcome to open a new discussion section and present them. He might also support his dismissal by noting any factual errors he can find in the book.

6. On Wittgenstein saying ".. my thoughts are 100% Hebraic", Ernham's argument is that whatever it was he meant by it, it wasn't ".. my thoughts are 100% Hebraic". While there might be something to be said for Ernham's argument here, it must be obvious to us all that it has to lie very deep.

W and Hitler Photo

The article currently contains a photo from Cornish's 'The Jew of Linz', of a young Hitler and another boy who is alleged to be Wittgenstein. While it is not disputed that Hitler and W attended the same school, to my knowledge the boy in the photo who is supposed to be Wittgenstein has never been clearly identified. I won't remove the photo (yet), but I believe its inclusion is bad form. Given the nature of the book, Cornish's claims and his Wikipedia history (which I see as mostly non-NPOV self-promotion), etc, I think we should be very skeptical and hesistant of including the picture in the article.Enigma00 15:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The photograph is from the German archives in Koblenz and has appeared in many publications, including Walter Langer's O.S.S. study "The Mind of Adolf Hitler", in the Bookclub Associates edition, which dates it to 1903/4. That Wittgenstein is the other boy in the photograph was confirmed as "highly probable" - the highest assessment the unit offers for all court cases - by the Victoria Police photographic evidence unit which subjected it to detailed examination. The names of the Victoria Police personnel involved in the investigation were provided in "The Jew of Linz". No reviewer of the book (and it has been reviewed in many reputable journals including the TLS) has disputed their assessment. In the decade since it was reprinted in "The Jew of Linz" Enigma00 is the first person to state that "the boy in the photo who is supposed to be Wittgenstein has never been clearly identified". We are owed, I think, a brief account of what he would accept as "clear identification" if a police photographic lab is insufficient to do the job. Should he have any technical expertise to present in this matter, we must all surely welcome his contribution.

Kimberley Cornish 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That the photo appears in many books in not in dispute; my point is that as far as I am aware, you are the only one to ever claim that the other boy in the photo is Wittgenstein. Yes, you do have the assesement of the photograph by the police photographic evidence department, but if we want to be good historians, perhaps we should take a page from scientists and see if we can't get other photographic experts to weigh in; that several personnel trained in the field said it was high probable is certainly promising, but given that no one else has ever claimed what you are claiming, and that photographs of young Wittgenstein are not hard to come by for easy comparison, I'd rather still be skeptical about it. But as I said, I'm not going to remove it yet. Enigma00 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jolly decent of Enigma00 not to remove it yet, though I notice he/she has already removed a reference within the article to "The Jew of Linz" without prior discussion. However, let us focus on the issue of the photograph. The school records are available on the University of Passau website http://www.phil.uni-passau.de/dlwg/ws07/15-1-97.txt.

Wittgenstein is officially recorded there as being in classes V, VI and VII. The school now responsible for the records of the Linz Realschule that Hitler and Wittgenstein attended (which was in the Steingasse) is now the Bundesrealgymnasium in the Fadingerstrasse. Its principal (in 1998 when I last corresponded) was Herr Herwig Arnold. Any enquiries concerning class photographs of Wittgenstein at the school should be addressed to the current principal at the above address in Linz. The issue of school photographs of Wittgenstein is thus settlable without even bothering with forensic photographic laboratories and my efforts to cover every angle by resorting to science seems only to have aroused doubts about a matter that is in fact very simple. (I mention, by the way, that there are no photographs of Wittgenstein aged 14/15 in the biographies.) Enigma00 is welcome to repeat my exercise of a decade ago by somply writing a letter to Linz.

But, even if Hitler and Wittgenstein are shown only centimetres apart (as they are) will it convince him/her that they knew each other? Well, proximity in a photograph is evidence of acquaintance, but it is certainly not proof and, adamantine sceptics will hold to their unbelief no matter what. But the photograph is in any case only visual confirmation of what we know ALREADY from the school records, that the son of one of the richest Jews in Central Europe and indeed, the world, was at a tiny school of about 300 students for a year with a 6-days older Adolf Hitler. The job of demonstrating acquaintance was done not by the photograph, but by the deductive argument based on Franz Keplinger's testimony, that is summarized in the Wikipedia article "The Jew of Linz". Hitler's references in "Mein Kampf" to an indiscrete boy at the school who lay at the very beginning of his anti-Semitism are just extra twiddles on a very simple deductive argument based on Keplinger's testimony. That is to say, even were the photograph completly bogus (which it is not) nothing whatever of the case of "The Jew of Linz" would be affected. Kimberley Cornish 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

None of this is really germane to our roles as Wikipedia editors. We can't do our own research but have to write up what the best secondary sources say. And Mr Cornish's book is one written for a popular audience, not a scholarly text. Whether its claims are plausible or not is by the by - we must treat it with great caution. Please bear in mind that attribution comes even before truth in WP policy. Itsmejudith 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As with all of us concerned that our beliefs be true, Itsmejudith will welcome being corrected: the book's author hereby informs her that the book was NOT written for a popular audience. (Presses Universitaires de France does not publish works by popular authors.) Wikipedia policy is quite clear: one's own work can be quoted, and attributions made thereto, provided it has been published. "The Jew of Linz" meets this criterion. It need be treated with no greater caution than any other work from a reputable publisher, and indeed, it sometimes corrects errors of other writers. On some matters, such as the school-year that Wittgenstein attended the Realschule with Hitler (1903/4) Ray Monk's standard Wittgenstein biography falsely gives 1904/5. Readers can be assured that neither Random House nor any other of the book's reputable international publishers would put the Realschule photograph on the cover of their products (which are exposed to merciless criticism from irascible reviewers world-wide) without a thorough due diligence background check prior to publication. Finally, if, as Itsmejudith writes "attribution comes even before truth in WP policy" it is difficult to see what all the fuss over the book is about. The Wikipedia objectors are upset precisely over the truth of its claims, not over whether attributions to the book have been correctly referenced. The book, however, is not from any fly-by-night publishers and deprecating claims that "it is not a scholarly text" are best avoided; they serve only those creatures of darkness who refuse to meet its arguments.Kimberley Cornish 23:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the correction. PUF and Random House are reputable publishers. I withdraw my comment about the work being for a popular audience. Itsmejudith 09:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of W + Hitler photograph

The caption in the article claims it is from 1903. However, the summary on the photo's own page gives it as 1901. I assume the caption is correct since obviously the photo has been discussed extensively above, but just thought I raise it. Thanks Thekingofspain 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has altered the dating on the picture since it was originally posted in The_Jew_of_Linz Wikipedia article by me. (See the history of the discussion page of the image.) I was not aware this had happened. My thanks to User:Thekingofspain. Walter Langer's book "The Mind of Adolf Hitler" which is a post-war publication of Langer's wartime psychiatric evaluation of Hitler for the OSS (which became the CIA) has it captioned "At the Linz High School, aged 14 (extreme right, upper row). His achool performance was generally mediocre. AP Photo". Langer, of course, is referring to Hitler, not Wittgenstein. For those wanting a complete reference, the publishing details on the page opposite the foreword, read "This edition published 1973 by Book Club Associates By arrangement with Secker & Warburg Ltd. Copyright 1972 by Basic Books, Inc. First published in England 1973 by Martin Secker & Warburg Limited." Since Hitler was born 20th April 1889 (and Wittgenstein 26th April 1889) if Hitler is given as being 14 in the photograph in Langer's book, it has to have been taken 1903/4, which is the school year in question. Langer wrote the book not as a freelance psychiatrist, out of personal interest, but as an analyst of, and for, the United States government. That is to say, what he wrote was research of the national intelligence agency in wartime against the leader of the main state against which the United States was waging war. One would therefore expect his data to be correct. Kimberley Cornish 22:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The photograph has been deleted from the article by one Cerejota, without any discussion first. I have therefore undone his/her edit. Article changes should feature in discussion first and certainly not be done unilaterally. Any reasons to justify the deletion should be presented first for public assessment and should take into account the already lengthy discussion, above, on the matter.Kimberley Cornish 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)