WITTGENSTEIN AND THE CONTINGENCY
With his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Wittgenstein tries to give a modern expression to the Platonic idea of fundamental objects that form the elements of our reality. He, as did Frege, thought that there are consistent elements or objects that are the principle elements of the world. The opening of the book: “The world is everything that is the case”, is an expression of the thought that our world is a contingent synthesis of fundamental objects, or in other words and related to our language, there is an ontological structure of objects, and corresponding names in our language, that are the absolute and permanent principles of a contingent composition which we call the world, and sentences are the contingent composition of the fundamental names. And that is exactly what the world has become to, a contingent or coincidental composition of matter that is maesurable and can be explained in data. The challange is then how to find a place for men with not only reason, but also sentiment and morality in this world.
In his Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein attacks this idea he had before and states that there are no fundamental principles, but they are merely instrumental in our philosophical thinking and understanding of the world. Without this concept it is impossible for us to formulate ideas about the world in language, as language is based on the generalisation of contingent facts that makes them communicable. But this is not how we actually use language. We do not only talk about generalisations, we wish to talk about specific and contingent facts. So we do and thus the philosophical idea of fundamental principles seems to be based upon a misunderstanding. More closely related to our use of language, and this is me talking, seems to be that in the use we on and on create new principles. This is how I interpret Wittgensteins meaning is in the use.
THE CONTINGENT PRINCIPLE AS PARADIGM OF NETWORK THINKING
In the attached essay I try to explain how the ideas of Heidegger, Adorno and Derrida can be seen in this light of constant creation of contingent principles and how Bergson is giving expression to this very idea with his concept of durée. In my opinion this thinking can be very much associated with the network, as it gives expression to the actuality of the network and dissociates itself of the hierarchical thinking that I associate with the system. I think the network, as an infrastructure, facilitates a change of paradigm in which twentieth century philosophy can be seen as a point or indication of conversion.
The first would be that in which absolute truths form the basis of our thinking and doing. It is a paradigm that asks for hierarchical and analytical thinking, that may have various branches, but which all lead back to this ‘one’ fundamental principle, which is either the starting point or the end point of a system.
The following paradigm will be that of a contingent truth, one that finds its existence and value in the relative moment or period of its emergence, but which does not have the potential or pretension to be of an eternal and absolute character. It is a paradigm of non-hierarchical and synthetic thinking, finding its contingent manifestation of results in a network of potential elements whci are all of a contigent character themself.
