I don't know if Naagaarjuna survives this comparison intact, but Wittgenstein does not. This is a serious distortion of his views. The later Wittgenstein has no interest in a "linguistic system" or the notion that it might be necessary to "employ formalism" in order to reveal the system that is already there. Perhaps these remarks could be made about the Tractatus. Wittgenstein once thought that "if all objects are given, then at the same time all possible states of affairs are also given," and that "if elementary propositions are given, then at the same time

p. 164

all elementary propositions are given." [50] "Language disguises thought." [51] but the philosopher can by analysis reveal the logic of language. The meaning involved would be clear and indisputable since "a proposition has only one complete analysis." [52] Although the Vienna Circle understood the Tractatus to be a development of British empiricism, [53] it nowhere says either that the "objects" can be experienced or that "verification" is required. A proposition is "understood by anyone who understands its constituents," [54] that is, he must know what the names stand for; nothing is said about "experience" of objects.

　　 In the Investigations, moreover, Wittgenstein says nothing about the "elements" of a language game being in a "criterial network." On the contrary, he is concerned to criticize the search for "elements" as a kind of sickness:

"A name signifies only what is an element of reality ..." -- But what is that? -- Why, it swam before our minds as we said the sentence! This was the very expression of a quite particular image: of a picture which we want to use. For certainly experience does not show us these elements....

　　 When I say: "My broom is in the corner," -- is this really a statement about the broomstick and the brush...? If we were to ask anyone if he meant this he would probably say that he had not thought specially of the broomstick or specially of the brush at all. And that would be the right answer. [55]

Wittgenstein situates language in our lives, so a philosopher might say that Wittgenstein had two "elements" in his language games: language and life. But what would be the use of such a remark unless it were to make a joke? (Compare: "I have only one thing to do: live"!)

　　 In the "private language" discussion, Wittgenstein is not concerned with "elements" -- which he has already considered -- but with the philosophical notion that our language has meaning because we bear in mind or mean words in a certain way. [56] For then I could use words in a way that only I could understand, since the meaning is given by what I bear in mind and I can bear in mind whatever I please. Thus, I might take a seat in a restaurant and say "I would like a hamburger" all the while bearing in mind "Don't bring me anything." But by this sort of "meaning" I could say anything or nothing since there would be no incorrect or correct use, and this is absurd.

　　 Wittgenstein does not say that "the speaker and the external environment are both constructs within the system." What would it mean, within the point of view of the Investigations, that the speaker is a "construct"? Perhaps a Tractarian meaning could be given to such a statement since there Wittgenstein was interested in simple elements, the "objects," which "make up the substance of the world." [57] Is a broom a "construct" of a handle and a brush, a man a "construct" of flesh and bones? There is no absolute answer to such questions. [58]

　　 Wittgenstein does not say that "a perception of something has significance when logically connected with the criterial network of the language game." A cat sees a mouse. This is significant, I suppose, for the cat and the mouse, but this perception has its significance whether or not the cat and the mouse -- or anyone at all, for that matter -- are playing a language game. He does not say that a cat

p. 165

and a mouse are "metaperceptual" and "hypothetical." Moreover, the man born blind who gains his sight is irrelevant to Wittgenstein's concerns. A cat or a man would, I imagine, have to learn how to see. But this has no immediate bearing on our problem. If a cat learns to see a mouse, this is significant whether or not any language games are played. A man in a highly primitive situation might learn to see a banana, and this would be significant whether or not he or anyone whom he knew could speak a word.

　　 Waldo has, I believe, Tractarian desires for a sublime logic for which ordinary language is inadequate and for which language therefore requires us to "employ formalism," all of which is quite foreign to Wittgenstein's thought in the Investigations.

In philosophy we often compare the use of words with games and calculi which have fixed rules, but cannot say that someone who is using language must be playing such a game....

　　 All this, however, can only appear in the right light when one has attained greater clarity about the concepts of understanding, meaning, and thinking. For it will then also become clear what can lead us (and did lead me) to think that if anyone utters a sentence and means or understands it he is operating a calculus according to definite rules. [59]