Suggestions 1 Might it be useful to update Wittgenstein s contributions to various academic and philosophical inquiries It seems that Wittgenstein s use of language games and place of language in experience has experienced something of a revival among some postmodern academics In particular his own transition from representational to lived semiotic is in itself interesting as a presage of the movement from a representational to a community derivation of language meaning I m no Wittgenstein expert just stumbled upon this interesting if frustrating discussion and any credentials I might have had to the philosopher s club have probably long expired but a part of my doctoral work did float in and around meaning words classification and the uses we make of themvia semiotics Thus I am eminently unqualified to write such a piece though I can see a hole on the bookshelf where something like it might just fit That is philosophy did not end with Adorno or even with Habermas Some young buck out there can you tell whether this connection Wittgenstein s work on language and postmodern approaches to community as language has developed at all in contemporary 21st century philosophical work Might be nice to see something pragmatic as well as historic of course they are not mutually exclusive 2 On the issue of Wittgenstein s alleged personal quirks Given the absolute delight with which students of philosophy embrace all that is eccentric in the lives of the authors with whose works they are cursed to try and read see Philosopher s Song any campus and the somewhat unsettling popular idea that the most brilliant men almost always men are proportionately looney perhaps explaining the less brilliant lives of mostly normal people as well as the difficulty of actually nailing down with precise sources most of what happened in Europe during either of the world wars but in particular the secondthere was an awful lot of bombing and burning by both sides it might be difficult to come up with primary source material that would either confirm or deny even positions held forth in academic lectures but unpublished let alone personal eccentricities after all if the people writing about these eccentricities were themselves brilliant their own opinions of normalcy should be correspondingly suspect see the it takes one to know one argument So perhaps we should cobble together a tribute page to which all of the strange and probably unprovable and just as probably unimportant traits stunts personal traits learned tricks and inept relationships of all such brilliant but eccentric wiki subjects can point Thus the eccentricities which if not so important are entertaining enough that folks will be motivated to search dilligently for evidence enough to warrant a smirk can be acknowledged with a neat and proper cite through a proper point to another wikipedia page but the eccentricities page itself would be self evidently immune from the precision of source usually required of biographies of thought by the way why is it we assume that someone s date and place of birth is important to the formation of their intellectual ideas and would be a riotous read potentially Wiki s most commonly cited article This might satisfy both the biography of ideas and the biography of real peoples behind the ideas folks by allowing the hint or shadow of perhaps something utterly crazy to fall across the screen without an actual commission of the crime of citing one wack o s account of another wack o non traditional spelling intentional Paradoxically this page might already exist and merely lacks more slept with sheep but only within a platonic framework entries in order to accumulate enough word weight to produce a big enough ripple when it is dropped into the swimming pool of ideas After all it wouldn t probably be listed where any boring and thus non brilliant person might expect