Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein/Archive 4

Garik vs. Lestrade (Thread 1)
I notice that Lestrade keeps removing Wittgenstein from the Homosexuals category. I'd always understood him to be homosexual - everything I've read about him describes him as such (although the details of how physical his relationships were seem unclear. Moreover, this article suggests he was homosexual.  What do other people think?  Is this question really more controversial than I'd believed? garik 09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see a citation about his sexual orientation that recounts eyewitnessed events or refers to documented statements by Wittgenstein himself. It is not enough to make such a serious attribution on the grounds that you "always understood" it, that "everything I've read" makes that description, or that the "article suggests" it. Remember, it is a common tactic for homosexuals, in trying to make their behavior seem acceptable, to attribute it to famous people. When readers simply believe what has been casually asserted, that tactic is effective.Lestrade 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The fact that 'I'd always understood him to be homosexual' etc was not intended as a reason to have him included in that category here. I said that here merely to indicate my surprise that it is more controversial than I had previously supposed. My point about this article is a little different: the article states that most of his romantic atachments were to young men. Either we let that claim stay and add the homosexuals category to the end of the article, or we remove both. In allowing the article to claim that Wittgenstein was homosexual (or bisexual), but denying that he was for the purposes of excluding him from a category, seems highly inconsistent.

I would also take great issue with the following: Remember, it is a common tactic for homosexuals, in trying to make their behavior seem acceptable, to attribute it to famous people. When readers simply believe what has been casually asserted, that tactic is effective. First, there is the dubious generalisation of 'it is a common tactic of homosexuals'. Can you provide me with documented statements and eyewitness accounts of this? Second, the point seems somewhat irrelevant in any case. If it were proved that certain classical children's authors were paedophiles or child abusers, as has been claimed, this would go no way towards justifying paedophilia or child abuse. I also fail to see why homosexuals would need to appeal to famous figures 'in order to make their behaviour seem acceptable'. Are you implying that homosexual behaviour is unacceptable? On what possible grounds? garik 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * LW had a heterosexual attraction to Marguerite Respinger. That is a fact. As far as the above-mentioned tactic is concerned, I think that you would have to be blind not to see it. Other such tactics are the ever-increasing use of all available communication media to depict homosexuality as being common and acceptable, especially in order to influence young people and therefore future generations. The Wikipedia article on Wittgenstein should not include rumor or insinuation, especially since there is active intention to include such material, as can easily be seen in many other articles.Lestrade 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well maybe 'bisexual' would be a better category then - I certainly agree that people are too often taken for homosexual who would be far better described as bisexual. I admit that quite a lot of people I have met often seem intrigued by the question of whether or not acquaintance x or celebrity y is gay (again, the concept of bisexual seems very often to be ignored). However, the vast majority of the people I have known take an interest in this question were, as far as I could tell, heterosexual. You sound to me very much as if you suspect some sort of media conspiracy. What kind of influence do you suppose such conspirators hope to have on young people? To convince them that homosexual behaviour is acceptable? That would seem to me to be a laudable aim. I don't know if you understand the word 'insinuation' in the same way I do - to me it implies that you suggest or claim something negative about the target. I do not see, however, how calling Wittgenstein homosexual would be either positive or negative. As for it being rumour: well, fair enough. I don't know quite enough about him to know whether the evidence is any stronger than unsubstantiated rumour, but I am unconvinced that it is not. garik 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add, incidentally, that his sexual attraction to Marguerite Respinger seems as uncertain as his attraction to men. The fact that he was romantically involved with her does not mean that he was sexually attracted to her.  For my part, I suppose he probably was attracted to her, but one must be careful of merely assuming such things. garik 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes had an "heterosexual" attraction to Lydia Lopokova too, but he was homosexual.

I think the answer here is fairly straightforward. The issue of Wittgenstein's sexuality is discusssed in the article. If the conclusion of that discussion is that there is fairly broad agreement that LW was homosexual, or bisexual, then he can obviously be included in the appropriate category. If, in the article, no firm conclusion about LW's sexuality can be drawn because, say, it is a point of some serious debate among biographers, then he cannot go into either of those categories. That is, the categories cannot go beyond what is stated in the article.Davkal 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. How conclusive do you think the article is? garik 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear, for example, from the article, "What has become clear, in any case, is that Wittgenstein had [...] long-term relationships during his years in Cambridge with Francis Skinner and possibly Ben Richards." The debate mainly concerning how active LW was. The only stumbling block being whether he was homo(or bi)sexual, and I think to put both categories in, if you can be both, would seem to be making an extraordinary deal of something that shouldn't really be a deal at all. My thoughts are that according to the article we could, without much controversy, list him as homosexual. Davkal 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair to me. garik 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Similarly, there are no eyewitnesses or documents regarding his alleged role in various bank robberies, child molestations, and serial murders. Can I include those activities in the article, also? But, possibly, there are not enough people who want to make those attributes seem benign.Lestrade 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, but Lestrade, the article makes it plain he had homosexual relationships but says nothing about any of the other things you suggest. That's why, it seems to me, it is acceptable to categorise him as homosexual but not as, say, a bank robber.Davkal 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Davkal: "&hellip;the article makes it plain&hellip;" But who is to say that the article has any basis for making it plain?


 * User:garik: "&hellip; a laudable aim&hellip;" would you also laud a few million more deaths due to AIDS? You see, that virus is very efficient in entering the blood stream through intestinal tissue that has been damaged by friction.Lestrade 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, I think your points are now becoming somewhat hysterical and a bit nasty. If you have an issue with the claims in the article about Wittgenstein's sexuality then challenge the sources in an appropriate manner - i.e. by finding other sources which support your contention. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then I suggest you take that elsewhere. I'm not going to report your last comment but I think you should reexamine it and see if it's something you really want be associated with.Davkal 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

would you also laud a few million more deaths due to AIDS? You see, that virus is very efficient in entering the blood stream through intestinal tissue that has been damaged by friction. I hope it is not necessary to explain the problems with this argument. I agree with Davkal and hope that you succeed in calming down.

With regard to Stemonitis's edit, I agree that LGBT is an excellent and preferable alternative to homosexual as a category. garik 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LGBT category,although it seems to have gone already. Davkal 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that my argument is not taken seriously. I claim that the assertion in the article that LW is a homosexual is groundless and has not been proven. I am told that if I disagree with the claims in the article, I must challenge the sources by finding opposing sources. But this contradicts the dialectical rule affirmanti incumbit probatio. This means that it is incumbent on the person who makes an affirmative, positive assertion to provide proof. Such proof must be provided by whoever says what LW is, not what he isn't. Also, I protest that User:garik's statement is considered acceptable, but my warning of the consequential health hazard is something that you might "report." User:garik says that convincing young people that homosexuality is acceptable is a laudable aim. This is said in the midst of a rampant AIDS epidemic. But, you would "report" my warning, not User:garik's irresponsible and fatal assertion. Such an attitude betrays a bias and intention that I cannot hope to overcome by rational means.Lestrade 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

1. Sources are provided in the article to back up the claim of LW's homsexuality. If you don't like them, or don't accept them, but all/most other editors do then it is now incumbent on you to find something that casts doubt on them. You simply saying "I don't think it's true" doesn't wash. 2. Let us report you and Garik and see who the admin think is making offensive comments. I know who my money's on. In any event, I merely asked you if you wished to reexamine your view and made no statements about the suitability of Garik's claim at all - even if he was in the wrong, two wrongs wouldn't make a right. Davkal 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lestrade, I imagined it would be unncessary to point out the problems in your AIDS-based argument; apparently I was mistaken. I have to admit to being somewhat disturbed by your grasp of the facts.  First, you seem not to recognise that homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing.  The latter is very common among heterosexual couples; conversely, many homosexual couples do not indulge in it.  Second, do I really need to remind you that AIDS is far from restricted to gay people?  If we must be graphic: the human immunodeficiency virus is very efficient at entering human beings in the exchange of most bodily fluids (saliva, apparently, is something of an exception).  This includes vaginal intercourse.  Need I also remind you that the vast majority of AIDS sufferers are not gay men?  It is not homosexuality that has spread AIDS so wide; it is ignorance.  And that is something I hope future generations will learn to find unacceptable. garik 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, let's try to bring this discussion back to Wittgenstein. Sorry everyone for going off topic. garik 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

D. Webb et. al (Thread 2)

 * Regarding LW, he never admitted to being homosexual. Not one of his friends or acquaintances ever publicly stated that he engaged in any such acts. In plain English, such an attribution has never been proven at all. Regarding your naïve ideas about the transmission of AIDS, it is only transmitted by direct injection into the bloodstream. This rules out vaginal intercourse. That is why it can be transmitted by tatooing or by the use of hypodermic needles. Your assertions are dangerous and irresponsible.Lestrade 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * While I agree in principle that claims for which one can't find written sources should be excluded from the encyclopedia since they involve original research (and I'm not saying anything about the present debate, since I don't know enough about what written sources are available), the fact remains that Wittgenstein was homosexual whether or not that belongs in an encyclopedia. I knew a man, a notable scholar of good reputation, who knew G.E.M. Anscombe and Peter Geach personally, both of whom were good personal friends of Wittgenstein, and he had no doubt whatsoever that Wittgenstein was gay; he even stated it in an introduction to a translation of one of Wittgenstein's books. I believe him, whatever his sources were. But you seem to be in need of an education about Aids; it most certainly can be transmitted through vaginal intercourse. Read up on it. Or talk to a doctor. --D. Webb 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Lestrade, you're right. But you forgot to add that only people with the poof gene can catch it. That is, a woman can get it through vaginal intercourse but only if; A) she shags a man with the poof gene; b) she herself has the female version of the poof gene; and c) both are psychologically under 25. Please correct me if I'm wrong here Lestrade, because as everbody knows the poof gene wears off by about this age and poofs stop being poofs (even women poofs although I think it's about 23 years for them)and become normal people. Except for those poofs that stay poofs by remaining under 25 years old (23 for women) for their whole lives. Davkal 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User: D. Webb's "proof" is based on hearsay and rumor. User:Davkal has made a poor attempt at gallows humor. It looks as though everyone but me is content to include unproven accusations about LW in the article. I guess that is the way of Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that young people, who usually believe what they read, will be influenced by such misinformation.Lestrade 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * I wasn't offering this as a proof. If I were, then I would simply add it to the article. You can get off your high horse too, pretending to be the only one who cares about verification. Did you not read what I wrote? I do agree that information that cannot be found in written documents should be excluded. However, I am not absolutely certain that no written documents exist indicating W's homosexuality. Others, more knowledgable than I, will have to dig that up. What you took as a proposed proof was merely my own personal reason for believing the claim. Hearsay and rumour of unknown origin, while inadmissible as evidence here, need not necessarily be incorrect. It isn't even clear to me that this information is ultemately based solely on hearsay. Who knows whether Anscombe, W's iterary executive, had access to written documents proving the claim? And I won't insist that the written documents come from W's own pen. I seem to recall Bertrand Russell confirming it too somewhere, but can't remember where. Of course you will say that since Russell - if he did say that W. was homosexual, isn't reliable since he would be basing it on a conversation he personally had with Wittgenstein. But if W's mentor, friend, and benefactor claims to have been told by W. that he was gay, then that isn't just any other rumour. And if other, equally reliable sources, agree, then I would say we had a reason to believe that W. was homosexual. I also seem to remember Ray Monk's excellent biography of Wittgenstein discussing his homosexuality, but it has been a long time since I read it and so I no longer recall where he said this nor did I check his sources. But the book got outstanding reviews and is thought to be quite reliable. Perhaps someone could find out whether Monk does include discussion of W's homosexuality and what is sources were? --D. Webb 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In Monk's book, p. 376, LW is supposed to have written about Francis Skinner, that he "&hellip; Lay with him two or three times (Zwei oder dreimal mit ihm gelegen)." This is cited as coming from Manuscript 118 of LW's papers. Monk calls these remarks "coded," as though they have an unusual or idiosyncratic meaning.Lestrade 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Well, that's at least an indication. Now, taken together with reports from his friends, it would seem to indicate that the reports of his homosexuality are not merely hearsay. --D. Webb 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not give examples of the evidence on which some people conclude Wittgenstein to be gay, drop a few sources for those who want to pursue the issue further, and say no more? I'm personally satisfied in believing Wittgenstein to be gay, I wouldn't want to whomp some unsuspecting reader with my side of the debate as though it were a generally accepted fact, which from this debate we can conclude it is certainly not. There is the further issue - though I suppose its almost useless to point it out - that perhaps we ought to respect Wittgenstein's privacy and remain silent on this question. JoelSCollier 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thread 3
Yes it's obvious that Wittgenstein was a homosexual. It can be inferred from simple mathematical statistics of lifeforms on this planet where homosexuality occurs on average across many species at all levels even down to insects in the 8-12% range. I.e. in all cases where there is no substantial history of heterosexuality, the reason people like american politicos fake same: it is just too fundamental an instinct to pretend you don't have. Disorders that produce an asexual individual are not unheard of but are rare enough to be discounted (1 in 10 vs. 1 in 10000). Also the failure to acknowledge his sexuality by a figure who made such a great stink about his personal integrity casts a shadow on his legacy. One does have to factor in the fact that it was a criminal offense which even after LWs death drove Turing to suicide but still. If Wilde and others could come out in spite of the consequences this fits in with other defects in LWs character, as I say especially as he was ever on his high horse and did live in the 20th and not the 19th century. Also this page needs to be archived. Lycurgus 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also whycome this bugger gets to be Homosexual and everybody else is Gay? Lycurgus 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no care as to whether Wittgenstein is labeled homosexual or not. In fact,  although I do care (somewhat) about overall subject (Wittgenstein), I'm only replying to this post, because I feel I have to respond to utter nonsense.  I think you've made a major logical fallacy.  For example, I'm Caucasian.   Put me in a room with 9 Asians.  The chance that you randomly pick a Asian from the room are 90%, certainly.  But associating me with that group doesn't make me any more Asian.  Even if 99.999% (IE, 99999/100000) of people all "no substantial history of heterosexuality" are homosexual, you haven't proved that Wittgenstein isn't that 1/100000.  Frankly, I doubt:  1. 8-12% of people are homosexual.   Of course this depends on your definition of homosexuality.  Kinsey, of course, had a scale as to the degree of homosexuality.  If you include everybody that has experienced something that could be (even remotely) defined as a homosexual experience, I'm sure its larger than 90%.   But those that actively pursue homosexual relationships are far lower than 8%, at least in humans.  2. I think the number of people that are to some degree asexual rather than homosexual or heterosexual is quite larger than what you might expect, certainly not 1/10000.


 * Arguments have been made both ways in this thread... that he had friends that recalled him (as being or supposedly experienced him as a) homosexual, and that he had a heterosexual relationship. Frankly, I'm not sure I see why it even matters.  The only thing that matters is we need to be honest.  Is there any true reason we need to pigeonhole him into being heterosexual or homosexual?  I can see why the homosexuals category exists.  But if that exists, why shouldn't there be a heterosexuals category?  We could then label him as neither, or both.


 * All this fight is over the accuracy of a stupid label. If his supposed homosexuality had any direct effect on his philosophy, then its important.  But I don't know that it has any value.


 * My apologies, but I also must mention something (to Lycurgus).  I'm a native speaker of English, and I'm having trouble understanding you.  I'd accuse you of being drunk, but I see from your user profile you know multiple languages, and even though you say you are a native speaker, I fear your writing is not up to par. Please work on it. That, or you were indeed intoxicated.   Root4(one) 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Did make a 3 character change, your inability to read the text when it scans correctly to me is not my problem (my position for English only!). The figure on Kallmans Syndrome was taken from the current content of the article. Actually the parallels are closer to the text of your first paragraph, the situation of you verifying that you are a causcasian and then my inferring the thing you had by (verbal) behaviour asserted  with an entirely superfluous induction. Inductive arguments (other than mathematical induction) are never proofs in the sense you apparently mean. The rest doesn't deserve comment, except I will say lately I've developed a real loathing for formulas like 'My apologies' and 'Good Luck' that try to mask honest animus with fake civility. Lycurgus 08:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (This is bit off topic.. but I don't think its is a terribly bad diversion). I've re-read (Thread 3, 1st paragraph), and I still have to re-work it in my head to understand better.   But I'll agree that it was NOT written as if you're just spouting garbage as if you were on some mind-altering substance.


 * I shouldn't have accused you of writing while intoxicated. That is a bold assertion, and something I should not use lightly, but I did. I'm sorry. I'll agree, I did attempt to mask, but I'm not sure I would call it "fake civility". I really was trying to be nice about it.  How can one be nice about an accusation like that?  I don't know.  Maybe calling it "fake civility" is more correct than I currently want to admit.


 * I think I can correctly say that no ill will was directly pointed toward you as a person. I do have a very strong distaste for drunken speech and writings, and those who practice their creation, but it was wrong of me to color your words by my prejudice.


 * But otherwise, I do feel that my point #2 was slightly missed. Let me explain further so that there (hopefully) should be less misunderstanding.  It seems by your arguments that you have assumed that Kallman's Syndrome would account for all forms of asexuality.  I'm sure the rates for that particular syndrome are remarkably low and our article is reasonably accurate on that particular topic, but for your argument, that he must be homosexual because of his lack of heterosexual relationships, to hold any value, you have to account for all forms and states of being which would account for the lack of hetro-sexuality.   Please note the 1% statistic in the middle of our asexuality page.  This is 100 times higher than the 1/10000 statistic.  If 1% of people are (purely) assexual, and 10% of people are (purely) homosexual, then 1%/(10%+1%) = 1/11 (or 9%) of non-hetrosexuals are assexual.  If the number of homosexuals is actually around 3% (a figure I find much more reasonable, though I'm not sure I can back up), then 1%/(3%+1%) =1/4 or 25%. of non-hetrosexuals are asexual.  It's certainly not obvious that anybody from either group is homosexual; a very significant minority are not.   And of course, there was my first point about even if the asexuals were very insignificant compared to the homosexual population, that doesn't make Ludwig "obviously" homosexual. We'd just prove that the odds are high that he was homosexual if that's our only information to go on. Of course, we have much more information to judge on than just these facts, but we don't necessarily have statistics for the other data we have on Ludwig.  But we appear to agree on point #1. Root4(one) 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, when I say, "It is obvious that X", I do not mean that a proof of X is available or even possible nor that X is an apodictic truth. The series of veridicality would be something like "obvious truth" << tautology (mathematical truth) << apodictic/a priori truth. As a (negative) example, I have fact checked statements in History of Missouri which are obvious falsehoods. In real life most of our decisions are made on relatively weak inferences (and of course with great frequency false ones). Lycurgus 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)