Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12671818
Author(s): Ali Oublal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12671818
PDF: Download Full Text
Volume 15 | Issue 3 | June 2024
Pages: 387-401
AboutUs: https://www.the-criterion.com/about/
Archive: https://www.the-criterion.com/archive/
ContactUs: https://www.the-criterion.com/contact/
EditorialBoard: https://www.the-criterion.com/editorial-board/
Submission: https://www.the-criterion.com/submission/
FAQ: https://www.the-criterion.com/fa/
ISSN 2278‐9529
Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal
www.galaxyimrj.com
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel
Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
Ali Oublal
Faculty of Letters and Humanities,
Ibn Zohr University, Agadir,
Morocco.
Article History: Submitted-09/06/2023, Revised-20/06/2024, Accepted-27/06/2024, Published-30/06/2024.
Abstract:
Wittgenstein’s aspect appertains to human experience; it fundamentally reveals a lot
about human perception, and language-employment. On this basis we explore seeing -as in
literature notably the novel Sisters. Clearly this proposition has connections with the fact that
if literary works are read from logico-philosophicus theories, they are thus deprived of its
value(s).For Wolfgang, Russell deprives literature of its aesthetic-cognitive value while
considering propositions in Hamlet untrue as there is no referent of Hamlet in the world.
However, Wittgenstein’s aspect allows refuting such a judgment; instead literature can be
read using these theories without dooming it to inferiority or meaninglessness.
Keywords: seeing -as- perception, literary propositions.
Introduction
Perhaps ‘’ deaths in Venice: The Cases of Gustav von Aschenbach ‘’ by Philip
Kitcher can be taken as the suitable starting point that questions our scientific curiosity to
bring this article to the fore. If it- I mean our choice – has to be argued, it is within the scope
of the philosophical reading the author provided to Thomas Mann’s novel. True, his profound
analysis is unquestionably auspicious, however what the analysis underlines in depth, which
is our concern, is the interact bonds between literature and philosophy. On such basis I hence
suggest one of the key founders of analytic philosophy Ludwig Wittgenstein‘s theory of
language to the core of this article. An array of aims can come out of this proposition, the
most above all is to unearth the literary dimension of Wittgenstein on the one hand , on the
other to skip over and take a step further claiming that arts by and large can be read from even
the philosophical perspectives which are deeply influenced by logic. Wittgenstein remains
very much influential in this regard. I consequently intend to establish debate anew over
387
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12671818
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
literature- the novel of daisy Johnson ‘sisters’ – and philosophy by virtue of aspect perception
of Wittgenstein. Part of what follows is thus a brief overview about aspect perception.
The so-called ‘’ aspects’’ has preoccupied Wittgenstein since the last two decades.
Literarily localising it, typescripts and his later manuscripts are devoted to this area as a field
of investigation. .The following ideas with which we intend to develop this introduction are
scattered throughout the above mentioned references. In his later philosophy .section xi of
part II of the Investigations Wittgenstein addresses rather orients initially his readers towards
that aspect perception. Four major points if not cues are to be considered based of course upon
the remarks included in Philosophical investigations. The first and foremost is that
Wittgenstein contrasts aspect with the firstly ‘’ object of sight ‘’ of dissimilar category (PI
§195a, §195b, §206b). He additionally brings that contrast with the property of object
(§212a). If somebody sees something based on certain conditions under which that sight
occurs, this does not necessarily mean that another would see it without of course
undermining the competence of the former. With these two aspects of contrast, we can
understand that Wittgenstein aims to merely say that seeing-as fails to teach us anything about
the external world (RPP I 899).
The second idea is the necessity of description or otherwise representation of the
objects of sight one fails to see. I hope not to be read against the grain; Wittgenstein simply
means that the person is required to make accurate representation of the object since while
failing to see the aspect. Another feature with which Wittgenstein ascribes and subjects his
aspect is the will (RPP I 899, 976; RPP II 545).because it makes sense to call upon the other
to see those objects, and additionally see such a particular aspect (see PI §213e).
The third idea is closely undetected from the former as , along with insisting on the
none-detachability between aspect and the object , it also provide some illumination about the
two key words ‘ description ‘ and ‘ representation’. In this sense, Wittgenstein considers the
concept of representation ‘elastic, and so together with it is the concept of what is seen”
(§198c). . To the end of clarity of it, he suggests taking into account “the occasion and
purpose” of different forms of “description” (§221e).and he adds “It is necessary to get down
to the application” (§201a). The last but not the least feature Wittgenstein attributes to his
seeing-as is the experience of noticing. To wordily state it, “Everything has changed, and yet
nothing has changed”. With the same regard, he suggests for the aspect to be aspect it has to
strike us otherwise “only dawns” and “does not remain” (RPP I 1021); “[it] lasts only as long
as I am occupied with the object in a particular way” (PI §210c).
388
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Part of what I hope to show in the reminder of this introduction, after having briefly
characterized Wittgenstein’s seeing –as, is why we intend to apply such a conception on
literary proposition; as already claimed , a reader of Wittgenstein cannot pass over in silence
the logical roots of his entire philosophy , yet omnipresent in Tractatus As being logically
rooted, his philosophy of language , as might some think , can derive literature from its
cognitive and aesthetic value, and thus Wittgenstein ‘s philosophy will be distanced from arts
by and large. The otherwise view we hold is that Wittgenstein cannot be confined to
philosophy; his propositions- though they are addressed to how philosophers fails to
understand the logic and significance of language – which consist the body of his conception
of language are as well useful to read any piece of literature without degrading neither
philosophy nor literature. To this end we propose to analytically read one of the statements
extracted from the novel of Daisy Johnson Sisters.
The Analysis
1-Aspect perception: Seeing –as.
“I look like Mum. Or like her mum she says, our grandmother, in India, where we have never
been. September does not look like us.’’ ( Daisy Johnson ,2021)
For the present discussion, the most important word that we perhaps see as the
paradigm which microscopically can narrow our scope to one very prominent corner in
Wittgenstein‘s philosophy is the verb ‘’ look ‘’. The latter captivates our attention, as it might
do so for everyone who reads Wittgenstein’s propositions notably his philosophical
investigations. On such a basis- the use of the verb ‘ look ‘ thus , we come up with some
points of convergence between the novelist ‘s words and Wittgenstein’s propositions , yet not
decided it if those meeting points are conceptual or else. The verb ‘’ look ‘’ involves us into
Wittgenstein’s behavioural criteria of mental phenomena along with the aspects of perception.
According to Wittgenstein, there must not be any presupposition that mental concepts are
restricted but only ‘’look’’ and ‘’see ‘’ (PI 66). The two verbs are sometimes used
synonymously and interchangeably, while in certain contexts they are differently in use. Our
analysis is set upon the former stance.
With first glimpse at the literary proposition, the novelist attributes his words to a little
girl July aiming to unearth the doubt July lives, and the ordeal she suffers in her biological
identity. Having so is expressed by the use of ‘’ look like ’’that is an equivalent to ‘’seeing
as’’. On such a basis then we are positioned to analyse the above literary proposition. An
389
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
enthralling ordeal, a persistently ghoulish account of grief and guilt, identity and co-
dependency the novelist brings to the readers in her narratives keeps circling back to the past
in Wittgenstein ‘s philosophy , notably between 1946 and 1949. During that time Wittgenstein
was concerned with aspect perception or seeing-as.( typescripts, Remarks on the Philosophy
of Psychology, ) also in his remarks about the Philosophy of Psychology Wittgenstein
contributes to such a debate. His extensions on the topic are included in remarks provided in
(MS 144; TS 234) which are later published as ‘Part II’ of Philosophical Investigations.¹ So to
analyse our proposition based on aspect perception we are required to first of all understand
what is meant by aspect of perception. In his 1949 selection Wittgenstein states:
“Two uses of the word ‘see’. The one: ‘What do you see there?’—‘I see this’ (and then
a description, a drawing, a copy). The other: ‘I see a likeness in these two faces’—let the man
to whom I tell this be seeing the faces as clearly as I do myself. What is important is the
categorial difference between the two ‘objects’ of sight’’. I observe a face, and then suddenly
notice its likeness to another. I see that it has not changed; and yet I see it differently. I call
this experience ‘noticing an aspect’. (PPF §§111, 113; p. 193).
Not only so, Wittgenstein adds other examples to clearly make his aspect plain. For example,
B)-Seeing a geometrical drawing as a glass cube or as an inverted open box, or as three
boards forming a solid angle (PPF §116; p. 193); or again, seeing a triangle as a triangular
hole, as a solid, as a geometrical drawing; as standing on its base, as hanging from its apex; as
a mountain, as a wedge, as an arrow or pointer, as an overturned object which is meant, for
example, to stand on the shorter sight of the right angle, as a half parallelogram, etc. (PPF
§162; p.200).
(C) Seeing an ambiguous puzzle picture in one way, e.g. seeing a rabbit’s head in what at
first glance looks just like the drawing of a duck’s head (PPF §118; p. 194); or a human figure
where there were previously branches (PPF §131; p. 196).
(D) Suddenly recognizing a familiar object in an unusual position or lighting (PPF §141; p.
197); or recognizing an old acquaintance (PPF §§143–4; p. 197).
(E) Seeing three-dimensionally (PPF §148; p. 198).
(F) Seeing a sphere in a picture as floating in the air (PPF §169; p. 201); or seeing a horse in
a picture as galloping (PPF §175; p. 202).
390
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
(G) Aspects of organization: seeing a row of four equidistant dots either as two groups of two
dots or as two dots in the middle bracketed by a dot on each side (cf. PPF §§220–1; p. 208)
If necessarily we are required to nest all those propositions into one brief idea, we are
hence unable escape Stephen Munhall’s own interpretation. They are constituents of the idea
that aspect perception is a ubiquitous phenomenon: ‘’everything we perceive, we perceive in
its relevant aspects: in a picture we immediately see what it represents and respond to it
accordingly just as we always see artefacts as what they are for us, what roles they play in our
lives, or again, we generally experience words as having a certain meaning’’; people always
take up the attitude towards objects that Heidegger calls readiness-to-hand.
In regard to the aspect of perception from Wittgenstein’s view, we can simply say that
the state of looking like a mother is what does the picture represent for July but we can say it
is not necessarily true. Back to the novel, the centrality of it lies in the elusiveness individuals
live in their identity, sisters included; this actually is seen through the fluidity of identity of all
characters in the novel. Here the distinction can be made between knowing and seeing. To
understand so, we consider the difference Wittgenstein makes between knowledge of an
aspect—say, what a picture represents—and actually seeing it as the following argues:
‘’When should I call it just knowing, not seeing?—Perhaps when someone treats the picture
as a working drawing, reads it like a blueprint’’. (PPF §192; p. 204)
What is thus known and seen in the literary proposition? If knowing necessitates a
picture, and in our case mother‘s look ‘’ is a picture, the thought of July is thus knowing not
seeing because what she conceives is given, rather represented by the object ‘’ mother’s
look’’. This is no hence her attitude towards her mother, or else amongst her family members
or even an outsider .The reason is that July does not just read off some charterstics about the
visual appearance of her mother, rather she sees her in the picture, Wittgenstein argues:
‘’we view the photograph, the picture on our wall, as the very object (the man, landscape and
so on) represented in it. (PPF §197; p. 205).
It is accordingly plain, not any picture is accurate nor what does represent is true,
some doubt can be there, and this is Wittgenstein’s point. J. Hyman (1992) claims in that
regard ‘’ looking at that portrait we see a man with a moustache (the picture’s ‘internal
subject’), and don’t just apprehend pieces of information about the appearance of a man, e.g.
that he has a moustache’’. If applied on the literary proposition, mother’s look is doubtful as
391
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
well. Not sure whether it is a resemblance to July or not . July only sees in the portrait of her
mother, the doubt continued and supported as well by novelist‘ s words implementing ‘’ or ‘’
as if July looks like her mum of her grandmother . In both cases , the identity mainly
biological is perturbing , sisters live a state of instability in that sense ; this is a form of
illustration of the fact that the novelist succeeds in treating the issue of identity for it is well-
stylistically –linguistically – formed according to Wittgenstein’s theory of perception. We
state so as Wittgenstein himself applies the ‘seeing-as’ – look like – locution to ordinary and
‘’unambiguous pictures, and not only to puzzle pictures that can be seen first as one thing and
then as another’’ the case of literary proposition is considered in the light of the latter –
puzzling pictures- as the former is regarded as the ‘continuous seeing’ of an aspect (PPF
§118; p. 194).Both Mulhall consider continuous seeing as the main concern of Wittgenstein
as P. F. Strawson himself holds :
‘’the striking case of the change of aspects merely dramatizes for us a feature (namely seeing
as) which is present in perception in general.’’
This indeed true and corresponds to the Wittgenstein’s discussion on aspect perception
in his 1949 selection of remarks (PPF) with the case of seeing a likeness, for all the examples
given can be regarded as variations of this theme. That aspect perception entails observing
similarity as wordily comes through Wittgenstein’s proposition ‘In all those cases one can
say that one experiences a comparison’ (RPP I §317). Based upon the following proposition
RPP I §508, ‘’an object is seen as a variation, or derivation, or copy, of another one . When I
see something as X I am aware of a similarity between it and X, be it a glass cube, the head of
a rabbit, or a galloping horse.⁷ But then, it can be argued that virtually all seeing is or involves
seeing resemblances. When I see a tree, for example, and realize that it is a tree, I see its
resemblance with other trees. In general, seeing that something is of a certain kind involves
seeing its likeness, in relevant respects, with other, familiar, objects of that kind. And even
when looking at an arrangement of shapes and colours I cannot make out what it is or
represents, I will at least be able to identify certain shapes and colours, which again means:
seeing in what way they are like other shapes and colours I’ve seen before. To the extent to
which ‘to see’ is a verb of epistemic success, every seeing involves identification of kinds of
objects or appearances, which means seeing them as similar to others of that kind’’
The view that ‘’ now I see it as …’’ is clearly stated by Wittgenstein as being
inappropriate in cases of ordinary perception. Let’s consider the example given by him , once
392
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
one fails to realize the ambiguity of the duck-rabbit drawing , one sees it as the drawing of a
duck’s head..’’ seeing as ‘’ then makes some sense as to say at the sight of knife and fork ‘’
now o see this as a knife and fork ‘’ . The same is valid for July who is in that insatiable state
in terms of her identity, biologically speaking. However there might any point of resemblance
between her and mum. The novelist intends thus to tell that her characters are in the state of
seeking their identity, as long as they fail to realize their identity they can thus see others as
their resemblance. If we consider the proposition of Wittgenstein He sees the picture as a
duck’ (PPF §§120–2; pp. 194 f), we can legitimately state that July see her mother as her
resemblance . In that vein, it is possible to ask when exactly, contrastively, one can consider
anomalous attitudes towards a picture as long as there is question of seeing something as
something else – seeing mother as her in our case, and consequently the proposition is out of
place. Wittgenstein answers lies in his imagining people who can be resisted by small black
and white photographs, and can perhaps be unable to see human faces in them (PPF §198; p.
205). Conversely by virtue of these people saying that we ‘’view a portrait as a human being’
(PPF §199; p. 205) in a meaningful way. With this conception, we can simply state that the
novelist utterances, rather words attributed to July cannot be meaningful if they are not read
within the context of the work, with its characters, settings and the so; that is , one has to
imagine himself as being a character in that story , as the novelist himself imagines his
readers as being part of the story . Beyond such, none, not only the July’ propositions, can
have meaning.
The question which arises here is that ‘’ are the two types of ‘’ seeing as ‘’ , one
dispositional, one episodic different? As stated in the following proposition:
“I say: ‘We view a portrait as a human being’—when do we do so, and for how long?
Always, if we see it at all (and don’t, say, see it as something else)? I might go along with
this, and thereby determine the concept of viewing a picture.—The question is whether yet
another concept, related to this one, also becomes important to us: that, namely, of a seeing-as
which occurs only while I am actually concerning myself with the picture as the object
represented. (PPF §199; p. 205)
We might find sufficient answer in such a proposition:’’ The phenomenon we are
talking about is the lighting up of an aspect. (LW I §429). It is very plain that the concept of
short-lived experience is unlike general attitude, and the former that is of a prominence in
Wittgenstein’s thought. The episodic sense of aspect perception is unstable state (RPP II
393
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
§540). Only in the alteration of aspect does one become conscious of an aspect (LW I §169).
But the question here is that can we say that the state of July is unstable, which can be
changed over time? If we read it from the stance of biological identity, we can say July
perhaps does not resemble her mother in her teen years, as may be her mother herself looked
like July while she was in her age . For biological features of beings change over time, there is
a possibility to look the same in certain age , and that is lived in our everyday life; this simply
argues for instable state human beings live in their biological identity . On the other hand ,
we can interpret the literary proposition in the light of the aspect perception ‘ seeing as ‘ –
look like – in our context . With this view, we can say that July is in an age is not enough
for July to realize if she looks like her mother or not, it only seems to her that she resembles
her mother or maybe not , by the time – when changes occur – she can later become conscious
of that aspect ; in such a case , the state is as well instable . The two readings meet in the fact
that sudden experience of change that make the aspect perception , and this is the core of
Wittgenstein philosophy in aspect perception (LW I §173). Wittgenstein takes The
experience of aspect perception as experience of recognition, which also does not last all the
time as states in his lectures:
“Do I always see a thing as something, although only puzzle-pictures bring this out?…
Suppose I show it to a child. The child says, ‘It’s a duck’ and then suddenly, ‘Oh it’s a rabbit.’
So he recognizes it as a rabbit. This is an experience of recognition. So if you see me in the
street and say, ‘Ah, Wittgenstein.’ But you haven’t an experience of recognition all the time.
The experience only comes at the moment of change from duck to rabbit and back. In
between, the aspect is as it were dispositional. … Geach: Couldn’t I say at any time how I see
it—not just when it changes? Wittgenstein: Only if you are concentrating on it … (LPP 103–
4).
Before coming to the psychological dimension in our analysis – of course based on
Wittgenstein- let’s briefly put Wittgenstein‘s account over that aspect perception. We humbly
claim that such an account significance lies in how it shifts our heed towards psychoanalysis
to the literary proposition. Very clearly noted, Wittgenstein‘s aspect perception is two-fold ;
dispositional and episodic ( appertaining to a particular experience ); he later denies the
ubiquity of aspect perception (RPP I §§24, 860; LW I §§170, 454). This on the one hand , on
the other hand , Wittgenstein insists on mastering the psychological dimension of the
concept – relating it with the groups with which is put – so that seeing something as
394
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
something can happen. Accordingly a logical condition of one’s having an experience of
aspect perception is that one has mastered a certain technique (PPF §§222–4; pp. 208–9):
‘’ But how odd for this to be the logical condition of someone’s having such-and-such an
experience! After all, you don’t say that one only ‘has toothache’ if one is capable of doing
such-and-such. (PPF §223; p. 208)
The concern of Wittgenstein is thus the concept of a momentary experience of seeing-
as; because the mastery of a technique should manifest itself, dispositionally, in—and be
presumed by—a certain attitude towards a picture is not in the same way puzzling . This
account suggests the shift of Wittgenstein makes between two different types of aspect
perception. Wittgenstein occupation with two connected accounts does not separate them
however they are distinct. For him the two problems are :
(1) Are visual aspects (resemblances) actually seen or are they only thought of in an
interpretation? (2) How (or in what sense) is it possible to experience an aspect (a thought, the
meaning of a picture) in an instant?
Understanding those two problems requires having typescript as reference upon which
Wittgenstein develops his philosophy of psychology.
2-Aspect of perception: is it seeing or interpreting?
In the light of seeing and interpreting , we consider the second part of a proposition
that goes : ‘’We do not remember our father but she must look like him, smooth-haired,
cheeks soft with blonde fuzz, pale-eyed like a snow animal.’’
July sometimes talks of her state – biological identity – while in others she shifts our
attention to that state of her sister September. The latter ‘ identity that counts for the novelist
herself, For the novelist aims to clearly picture the state of July after the death of September ,
by only this way , Daisy Johnson shows the degree of attachment July feels towards
September . That is why July starts with the pronoun ‘’ we ‘’ including herself and then shifts
to the pronoun ‘’ she ‘’ (September) This is in brief the context of the second part of our
extracted literary proposition. However, our concern here is ‘’ look like him, smooth-haired,
cheeks soft with blonde fuzz, pale-eyed like a snow animal.’’ July has still some doubt
whether they – sisters – resemble their father or not? That once again support the idea of
seeing-as , which we concluded that it is their state of instability – short-lived seeing as . What
395
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
interests us here is how the novelist attributes some features of animal to their father or even
the revere. And here we can ask if beings can have those features of animals as the case of
their father who is literary represented as a snow animal? To answer this question, we
propose to be back the two problems mentioned above. Let’s start then by “(1) Are visual
aspects actually seen or are they only thought of in an interpretation? (PPF §§140, 144, 148,
149, 169, 175, 181 f., 187, 190, 248.). If we go back to the opening remark in ( PPF §111) we
can say that people by and large say they see aspects , but could not be only a conventional
figure of speech , a derivative (metonymical) use of the word ‘see’ (PPF §169; p. 201; cf.
§190; p. 204)? Let’s argue with (LW I §765) by emphasising sometimes we use combine
some words that cannot be literarily joined, marry money that simply means marrying a rich
person. We are thus unable to skip the , Wittgenstein’s analogy with the phenomenon of
‘secondary meaning’: ‘’Under certain circumstances we are prepared to apply colour words to
vowels (PPF §177; p. 202); or the words ‘fat’ and ‘meagre’ to days of the week (PPF §§274–
8; p. 216). But we are always prepared to add that this is just a quirk of language: of course
the letter ‘e’ is not really yellow; and Wednesday is not really fat. Similarly, it might be held
that an aspect is not really seen, but only thought of or associated with one’s vision’’
Berkeley ‘s contribution in this regard is prominent ; he contends ‘’that the ideas of
space, outness, and things placed at a distance, are not, strictly speaking, the object of
sight’.’‘’All we actually see are configurations of colour; anything else can only be ‘suggested
to the mind by the mediation of some other idea which is itself perceived in the act of seeing’’
May be Wittgenstein has an odd argument against Berkeley who considers aspects as
only interpretations; he puts then :
(i)
‘To interpret is to think, to do something; seeing is a state’ (PPF §248; p. 212).
That is, seeing has genuine duration: one can ask for how long one saw the
drawing as a duck before it changed to a rabbit, whereas it sounds incongruous to
ask for the duration of an interpretation (LPP 330).¹⁴
To analytically prove that difference between seeing and interpreting, we rather intend
to read the literary proposition in the light of the first point. If we consider what July says
about her father as her thought -only thinks ; that is interprets , we cannot be right by
whatsoever means because the biological features cannot bear any further interpretations or
readings. So July does not think – interpret –according to Wittgenstein- because she does not
take a step further to do something, she only sees her father as a snow animal; it is only an
396
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
intervallic picture according to her age, may be it might be changed later on; and here we
come back to the fact that only change that makes consciousness of the person about aspects.
Even if the changes occur in her father features, she would not think of the else, rather she
would see him in another picture.
The second point for which Wittgenstein argues comes as follows:
(ii)
‘When we interpret we form hypotheses, which may prove false’, whereas ‘‘‘I see
this figure as a…’’ can be verified as little as (or only in the same sense as) ‘‘I see a
bright red’’ ’ (PPF §249; p. 212).—This, however, is problematic. For one thing,
seeing too tends to involve taking something to be true, which may conceivably
turn out to be false (e.g. if it is an illusion or hallucination). And my seeing-as can
also turn out to be true or false: for instance, when in the dark I see as a suspicious
human figure what in truth is only a bush. Or, to take one of Wittgenstein’s
examples, I suddenly seem to recognize an old friend, seeing his former face in an
older one (PPF §143; p. 197)—but then it turns out that it wasn’t him after all. Of
course, seeing something as X need not involve any belief that it actually is X, but
then, similarly, one can retreat from hypothesizing to mere imagining. That is,
both on the side of vision and on the side of thinking one can distinguish between
taking something to be true and merely toying with an idea. Thus, the fact that
many cases of seeing-as belong to the latter category may show that they cannot be
construed as interpreting, yet, more importantly; it is not enough to set them apart
from thinking and vindicate them as proper seeing.
In the light of such a point, we can say that July does not interpret her father’s facials,
she does not think of him as a snow animal, she sees him as a snow animal; that true
proposition if it has to be verified, requires its picture in the world which actually exists .On
the other hand, her seeing –as does not require any belief that her father looks like a snow
animal, but here the little girl is involved in the state of imagining. She only imagines her
father as a snow animal, and that is the case , because as sisters they have never seen him.
What if we consider the literary proposition according to the point below:
(iii)
If seeing something as X were only an interpretation (assertorical or fictional),
superimposed on what is actually seen, it should be possible to describe what is
actually seen, the none-interpreted data; but typically we cannot. Saying ‘I see it as
…’ is not just an indirect description of the visual experience that could be replaced
397
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
by a more direct one. It is the most appropriate report of what I see (PPF §117; pp.
193f.; RPP I §318). Or, in some cases, it would perhaps be possible to replace the
expression of an aspect perception (e.g. the three-dimensional impression of a
landscape, or a facial expression) by a Berkeleian description in terms of mere
colours and shapes, but only after special instruction and practice (PPF §148; p.
198; LPP 110).
Another sound justification that clearly enlightens our understanding is what July sees
as cannot be described but rather not replaced by what is actually seen. July thus does not
interpret because if she interprets, some descriptions should be provided but she lives that
experience, which illustrates that the act of interpreting is out of our context. What is seen is a
true experience in a nutshell. And that true proposition is a picture, and thus a proposition is a
picture of reality. And that is the reality July lives. This is what is illuminated in the
following point:
(iv)
(iv) As already explained above: when we see a picture as representing
something, we do not read it like a blueprint, but respond to it as to the object
represented (PPF §§192–9; pp. 204 f.). The aspect is directly perceived and not
only thought or known to be there as the result of an interpretation. This
experience of actual perception is also manifest in certain emphatic expressions,
such as: ‘The sphere [in the picture] seems to float’, ‘One sees it floating’, ‘It
floats!’ (PPF §169; p. 201), or, of an eye represented by a dot: ‘See how it’s
looking!’ (PPF §201; p. 205).
Following our analysis and argumentation meantime, July doubts if September
resembles her father and thus if her father looks like a snow animal. For though she sees
her father as a snow animal , she is unsure that September looks like her father and thus
the latter resemblance is doubtful as well . And that is the case for teenagers; their state of
instability proves so. Furthermore, the instability of identity July lives mainly after her
sister’s death is another proof. They might see something as something , as they might
think of something as being something but it is not true ; however July sees a resemblance
between her father and snow animal , there is a possibility to not exist , and this is proven
by the following point :
(v) Finally, as already noted, seeing-as is essentially noticing a resemblance, an internal
relation between an object and other objects, real or imagined (PPF §247; p. 212). But the
398
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
act of noticing a visual resemblance cannot be construed as distinct from that of seeing
(the resemblance). Of course you can see the same object without noticing the
resemblance, but the noticing (when it occurs while looking) is not a mental operation
distinct from seeing. Rather, it is seeing (LW I §511).
The four above mentioned remarks are the conceptual justifications that leads
Wittgenstein calls visual perception ‘ seeing’ . However the last point – (v)—namely that in
aspect perception one experiences a comparison (RPP I §317)—works also to dissolve two
ostensible objections to calling it ‘seeing’, which emphasises the way aspect perception can
alter. The first conception which is objected is the changed status of the object . What is
changed is only interpretation. This elucidates the fact that the subjective dimension of
experience, that change is not truthful cognition of object despite it is stated as if it is a visual
perception (PPF §137; p. 197). This first objection justifies the idea that how July sees her
father that changes over time but not the facials of her father. The second idea which
Wittgenstein objects is accepting seeing – as as a proper case of seeing is it subject to the will
(PPF §256; p. 213; cf. RPP II §544).
To briefly put , visual aspect perception is called ‘ seeing ‘ for Wittgenstein simply
because it includes certain attitudes towards an object notably the internal object of a pictorial
representation (PPF §193; p. 205).And this is indeed the case for July and her sister who only
build their attitudes towards their father . If we go back to the novel , we would find that both
sisters have never seen their father nor their grandmother , but they still hold some attitudes
towards them . That is why the novelist attribute ‘’ I look like my mother …………’’ . Seeing
-as instead – along with its episodic sense – is continuous and dispositional. If this justifies
something, it is in short the idea that how sisters see their father and grandmother is still
continued.
Conclusion
The objective conclusions that come up in the above analytical account are so
many. The prominence however goes first of all to the significance of his aspect in aesthetic
experience, judgment and understanding as well. Having said that assist our claim to reveal
that linguistic understanding is organically associated with understanding of art.
Wittgenstein’s aspect is important in reading any literary work in the sense that non-literally
reading takes place; a reader of a literary work requires going beyond what is written by
considering the attitudes of the person who claims to see something that the other cannot see
399
Wittgenstein’s Seeing-as Approach to Literary Propositions The novel Sisters by Daisy Johnson as a Case Study
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
in the object providing the context of the proposition. The claim that the status of the object
does not change yet only interpretations which do implies the fact idea readings that one can
provide to a literary proposition differs from one person to another. Objects – referents of
names – that are constituents of a proposition cannot be restricted to one single interpretation,
however the context remains the same and the status of objects is unchanged. The difference
that may occur in terms of thinking about something and later on figured out as untrue
justifies the fact that interpretations provided to literary propositions are only relative; and this
implies the idea that different interpretations differ based on the adopted approach. All these
features attributed to the aspect perception of Wittgenstein converge on the fact that
Wittgenstein’s theory of perception is a applicably fit to read literature.
List of abbreviations:
LC: Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief.
M: Wittgenstein’s Lectures in 1930-33’, notes by G.E. Moore,
.ML: Wittgenstein: Lectures Cambridge 1930-33: From the Notes of G.E. Moore,
PI: Philosophical Investigations,
RPP: Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology,
LWL: Ludwig Wittgenstein’ lectures
NB: Notebooks
PR: Philosophical Remarks
MT: Movements of Thought: Notebooks
PG: Philosophical Grammar
PPF : Philosophy of Psychology
PP I: Remarks on Philsophy of Pyscholgy ( vol 1)
Pp II: Remarks on Philosophy of Psychology ( vol.2)
LW I : Last writing on the Philosophy of Psychology (vol .1)
LW II : Last writing on the Philosophy of Psychology (vol .2)
LPP : Wittgenstien’s Lectures on Philosophical Psychology
NPL : Notes for the Philsophical Lecture
Works Cited:
Baz, A.( 2020). Wittgenstein on Aspect Perception. Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, Wolfgang. 2004. The Literary Wittgenstein. Routledge.
Johnson, D. (2021). Sisters. Vintage.
400
The Criterion: An International Journal in English Vol. 15, Issue-III, June 2024 ISSN: 0976-8165
www.the-criterion.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10448030
Kitcher. 2013. Deaths in Venice: The cases of Gustav von Aschenbach. Columbia University
Press.
Lamarque, P and Olsen, S.H. (1994). Truth, Fiction, and Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lewis, P. (2004). Wittgenstein, aesthetics and philosophy. Ashgate.
Schroeder, S.( 2017a). Wittgenstein on Aesthetics’, in: H.-J. Glock and J. Hyman (eds.), a
Companion to Wittgenstein, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. and Barrett, C. (2007). Lectures & conversations on aesthetics, psychology
and religious belief. University of California Press..
Wittgenstein, L and von, W. G. H.. (1990). Last writings on the philosophy of psychology.
Blackwell. ,
Wittgenstein, L. and von, W. G. H. (1998). Remarks on the philosophy of psychology.
Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L., Ambrose, A., & Macdonald, M. ( 1979). Wittgenstein Lectures: Cambridge,
1932-1935 ; from the notes of Alice Ambrose and Margaret MacDonald. Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L., M., A. G. E., von, W. G. H., and Nyman, H.(1998). Remarks on the
philosophy of psychology. (Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, and Desmond Lee. (1980). Wittgenstein’s Lectures. Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, and Hacker P M S. (2010). Philosophische Untersuchungen =
Philosophical Investigations.Wiley-Blackwell..
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, and et al.(1961). Notebooks . Harper Torchbooks,
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1965.I: A Lecture on Ethics..The Philosophical Review, vol. 74, no. 1,
, p. 3., https://doi.org/10.2307/2183526.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1929). Lecture on Ethics. Wiley..
Wittgenstein, L., M., A. G. E., von, W. G. H., and Nyman, H. (1998). Remarks on the
philosophy of psychology. Blackwell..
401
Ali Oublal