The author disagrees with reductionist attitude to Wittgenstein’s philosophy as philosophy of language. Basing on researches in contemporary French philosophy, the author reveals anthropological dimension of Wittgenstein’s reflections both in the main themes of his philosophizing and in his philosophical method as such. Wittgenstein strives to clarify what we already know, trying to avoid explanation, generalization and uniformity. The research shows that clarification, übersichtliche Darstellung acquires in anthropology special meaning of description and helps to overcome explicative anthropological approach and description (...) of human action in terms of binary oppositions of nature/culture and instrumentality/rituality. The article shows practical results of “grammatical analysis” applied to the concepts of humanity, speech and thinking: this analysis discovers circularity of theoretical definitions of human being and opens the way of “immediate understanding” of humanity prior to any theoretical thinking. The article shows the role of Wittgenstein’s concepts of “ritual instinct” and “ceremonial animal”, which help to understand human activity as manifestations of “ritual instinct”, and ritual action as inseparable unity of natural reactions and conscious intentionality despite the debates between intellectualism and expressivism. (shrink)

It is possible to pursue philosophy with a clarificatory end in mind. Doing philosophy in this mode neither reduces to simply engaging in therapy or theorizing. This paper defends the possibility of this distinctive kind of philosophical activity and gives an account of its product—non-theoretical insights—in an attempt to show that there exists a third, ‘live’ option for understanding what philosophy has to offer. It responds to criticisms leveled at elucidatory philosophy by defenders of extreme therapeutic readings and clearly demonstrates (...) that in rejecting the latter one cannot assume Wittgenstein’s approach to philosophy was theoretically based by default. (shrink)

I argue that it is possible and useful for moral philosophy to provide surveyable representations of moral vocabulary. I proceed in four steps. First, I present two dominant interpretations of the concept “surveyable representation”. Second, I use these interpretations as a background against which I present my own interpretation. Third, I use my interpretation to support the claim that Wittgenstein’s “Lecture on Ethics” counts as an example of a surveyable representation. I conclude that, since the lecture qualifies as a surveyable (...) representation, it is possible to provide surveyable representations of moral vocabulary. Fourth, I argue that it is useful for contemporary moral philosophy to provide surveyable representations, because it may help to dissolve problems in current debates. I provide an example of such a debate, namely, the debate between cognitivists and non-cognivitists. (shrink)