Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict: An Historical Survey (review) (1980)

110 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY To be fair to Fogelin, there is something to be said for his approach, despite all the foregoing. Were it not for the brilliant insights Wittgenstein brought to the questions that perplexed Russell, there would be no interest in determining Wittgenstein's authentic thinking upon any matter, for he never would have become the towering figure that he did in twentieth-centuryphilosophy. To provide us with a contemporary perspective on the problems with which Wittgenstein was taken to have been centrally concerned is certainly an important undertaking. Far too many people are prepared to accept (and others to reject) a position simply because Wittgenstein held it. Neither of these views has the slightest merit. The tone of Fogelin's book suggests that he has written, at least in part, as a corrective to a mystique that surrounds Wittgenstein and his works. In as much as this is true, we need reminders that there are remarkably weak arguments juxtaposed with brilliant insights in Wittgenstein's works. Any work that furthers intelligent discussion in philosophy has to be a welcome addition to the literature. There are at least some indications that Fogelin's Wittgenstein may serve that purpose despite its shortcomings. I cannot omit remarking on the format of the book, which is the responsibility of the publisher rather than the author. Routledge & Kegan Paul have done Fogelin a disservice by printing his book reprographicaUy and with minuscule margins. Aside from being remarkably ugly, this makes the book extremely difficult to read. Fogelin's book is very closely argued and by no means easy to follow in itself. The unjustified lines of the typescript almost guarantee a headache to the reader. And $11.75 seems rather a lot to pay for a headache. The book contains a few very minor misprints, but these are nothing compared to the inconveniencethe method of printing puts the reader through. This is not the case with the other two volumes I have seen from this series. I hope that it does not indicate a policy at Routledge. Finally, Fogelin prefaces his book with a motto from Epictetus, which I assume is supposed to tell us something about at least some of Wittgenstein's enthusiastic followers: "When a man is proud because he can understand and explain the writings of Chrysippus, say to yourself, if Chrysippus had not written obscurely, this man would have nothing to be proud of." Hamann said something similar about Kant enthusiasts in his day, and I tend to say the same to those of my friends today who are Heidegger enthusiasts. However, there is a law of governing the appeal to adage, which might be formulated in something like the following manner: every adage has an equal and opposite adage. With all due respect to Professor Fogelin's philosophical acumen and without any sense of malice, I take mine from one of Wittgenstein's favorite writers, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg: "A book is a mirror: if an ass peers into it, you can't expect an apostle to look out. We have no words to speak of wisdom to the stupid. He who understands the wise is himself wise." ALLANJANIK Wellesley College Samuel IJsseling. Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict: An Historical Survey. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976. Pp. 142. Gld. 35.00. Werner Jaeger pointed out nearly forty years ago that in the development and expression of the ideals of Greek culture the histories of philosophy and rhetoric are closely intertwined, and he went so far as to suggest that philosophy "actually grew out of a conflict with the sophistic type of education. ''l The intimate relationship between the thought of the Sophists and that of Socrates and Plato is universally recognized, and Socrates' comment (Phdr 278e) that "there is some philosophy" in Isocrates' thought has been interpreted either as praise or as irony by various commentators. Aristotle's Rhetoric has been discussed by classical scholars and historians of 1Paideia, vol. I, bk. 2, chap. 3, n. 35. BOOK REVIEWS 111 rhetoric, and the connection between him and Isocrates, who claims to be doing "philosophy," is interesting if less well known. Despite the facts that Cicero is a watershed figure...