As I said, he wasn't a social commentator. Btw, I just read Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry, and he reminds us that basically no one but Hannah Arendt even bothered to think about the holocaust until it became a fashoionable thing to do after the 1967 6 Day War, almost 20 years afterW died.
But again, he did not provide topical commentary on anything. As far as I know he did not discuss in print:
World War I (in which he was a soldier) The treaty of Versaille The inflation of the 1920s The revolutionary movements of that era and their fate The rise of Nazism The Russian revolution The struggle between Stalin and Trotsky The Great Depression The rise and threat of Nazi Germany World War II Imperialism in the (whjat we would now call) third world Women's liberation Civil rights of oppressed minorities Inequalities of wealth (though he gave away his own) Gay liberation (he was homosexual) The holocaust The United Nations The Cold War The atom bomb
Probably I have left something out, but I tried to hit the highlights so you would not have to ask. If you are looking for topical commentary, he's not your guy. His interest in rule-following behavior addresses in part the skeptical challenge, how do we know we are following a rule? Like, "add 1" or "use 'red' to mean this color here." If that level of abstraction does not interest you, don't read him.
jks
--- uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >If you want profound reflection on mind, language,
> logic, and >even society in broad sense-- W's
> lifelong preoccupation was the >nature of
> rule-following behavior -- he's your guy
>
> What's Wittgensteinian take on holocaust, if there
> is one?
>
> Ulhas
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com