I. INTRODUCTIONPaul Engelmann, Austrian architect who became friend of Ludwig Wittgenstein's during World War I, writes that although notion of a God in sense of Bible, image of God as creator of world, hardly ever engaged Wittgenstein's attention, idea of last judgement of profound concern to him. ?When we meet again at last judgement' was recurrent phrase with him, Engelmann explains, which he used in many conversation at particularly momentous point. He would pronounce words with an indescribably inward-gazing look in his eyes, his head bowed. Wittgenstein saw life as task, looking upon features of life as it is, that is to say upon all facts, as an essential part of conditions of that task. Wittgenstein, Engelmann continues, consistently held that if there was discrepancy between himself and world, the reason discrepancy lies in himself alone, thus rejecting the belief that changes in external facts may be necessary and called for (Engelmann 1967, 77, 79).The stance here described by Engelmann is one of humbleness, stance I take to be characteristic of conservative mentality-and there is no doubt that Wittgenstein held conservative views. In what follows I will refer to some further aspects of conservative mentality, and attempt to explicate notoriously elusive notion of conservatism, before returning to issue of what Wittgenstein's conservatism involves. I will then argue that alternative, left-wing/Iiberal, mentality clearly tends to lead to epistemological and ontological positions of relativism and constructivism. The conservative stance, by contrast, should lead to realism, and ultimately to common-sense realism.The author whose work first alerted me to connection between conservatism and realism is Gestalt psychologist and art theorist Rudolf Amheim. In his essay Wertheimer and Gestalt Psychology written in 1969 Amheim noted contrast between, on one hand, British empiricist philosophy proudly asserting dominion of individual's views and judgments over environment, and, on other hand, worldview of Gestalt psychologists, who showed respect structure of physical world as it impinges upon nervous system, affirming that it is man's task to find his own humble place in world and to take cues his conduct and comprehension from order of that world. In social realm, Amheim went on, Gestalt theory demanded of citizen that he derive his rights and duties from objectively ascertained functions and needs of society (Amheim 1969, 34).I will come back to Arnheim's conservative views below. For moment I want merely to point out that Arnheim was central figure heralding iconic turn- turn to visual thinking-today gradually gaining ground in humanities,1 even perhaps in philosophy. Arnheim stressed primordial and continuing significance of visual thinking, of autonomous pictorial meaning ultimately founded on so-called descriptive gestures, and of motor dimension inevitably involved in understanding of images. Now if Arnheim was on right track in all of this, as I believe he was, then lesson philosophy is that ontology cannot remain satisfied with being based merely and entirely on intuitions suggested by structure of verbal language, and epistemology cannot go on ignoring fact that our knowledge of world out there is founded more on immediate visual images than on mediating capacity of words.I will argue that not only Amheim but also Wittgenstein followed path from conservatism to realism. Wittgenstein in his later philosophy gradually worked out elements of novel, sophisticated, common-sense approach to both ontology and epistemology, one of these elements being rudimentary theory of pictorial meaning.2 Because mainstream view associates him with relativism rather than with realism, Wittgenstein might seem an unlikely candidate conservative exponent of realist philosophy. …
Read full abstract
Jun 6, 2024
Sergej Macura 
Open Access
