ANDY MARTIN “Beyond Understanding” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/beyond-understanding/

Andy Martin氏*1サルトルカミュの研究者であるらしい。著書として、Philosophy Fight Club: Sartre vs. Camusが近々出るという。

Autism is often the subject of contentious and emotional debate, certainly because it manifests in the most vulnerable of humans — children. It is also hard to pin down; as a “spectrum disorder” it can take extreme and disheartening forms and incur a devastating toll on families. It is the “milder” or “high functioning” form and the two main agreed-upon symptoms of sub-optimal social and communication skills that I confine myself to here.

Simon Baron-Cohen*2, for example, in his book “Mindblindness,” argues that the whole raison d’être of consciousness is to be able to read other people’s minds; autism, in this context, can be defined as an inability to “get” other people, hence “mindblind.”

ここで重要なことは、「自閉症」が「コミュニケーション・スキル」の非適切性、或いは「他人の心を読むこと」の困難に関わっていること*3。そして、『論理哲学論考』を巡るバートランド・ラッセルとG・E・ムーアとの会話でヴィトゲンシュタインがその中の或る命題について、ふたりに“I don’t expect you to understand!”(一説では“Don’t worry, I know you’ll never understand it.”と語ったことが採り上げられる。そして、ヴィトゲンシュタインが「自閉症」(アスペルガー症候群)だったとするSula Wolffの解釈。さらに、「自閉症」は「哲学」一般へと拡張される;

Wittgenstein is not alone among philosophers in being included in this category of mindblindness. Russell, for one, has also been labeled autistic. Taking this into account, it is conceivable that Wittgenstein is saying to Russell, when he tells him that he doesn’t expect him to understand, “You are autistic!” Or (assuming a handy intellectual time machine), “If I am to believe Wolff and others, we are autistic. Perhaps all philosophers are. It is why we end up studying philosophy.”

I don’t want to maintain that all philosophers are autistic in this sense. Perhaps not even that “You don’t have to be autistic, but it helps.” And yet there are certainly episodes and sentences associated with philosophers quite distinct from Wittgenstein and Russell, that might lead us to think in that way.

さらに、「地獄とは他人なり」のサルトル。そして、”philosophy would be a tendency to interpret what people say as a puzzle of some kind, a machine that may or may not work.”という。ここから、「哲学」と「自閉症」(特に「高機能自閉症」)における言語観の類似性が説かれる(さらに男性性の問題も);

I think this helps to explain Wittgenstein’s otherwise slightly mysterious advice, to the effect that if you want to be a good philosopher, you should become a car mechanic (a job Wittgenstein actually held during part of the Great War). It was not just some notion of getting away from the study of previous philosophers, but also the idea that working on machines would be a good way of thinking about language. Wittgenstein, we know, came up with his preliminary model of language while studying court reports of a car accident in Paris during the war. The roots of picture theory (the model used in court to portray the event) and ostensive definition (all those little arrows and labels) are all here. But at the core of the episode are two machines and a collision. Perhaps language can be seen as a car, a vehicle of some kind, designed to get you from A to B, carrying a certain amount of information, but apt to get stuck in jams or break down or crash; and which will therefore need fixing. Wittgenstein and the art of car maintenance. This car mechanic conception of language is just the sort of thing high-functioning autistic types would come up with, my psychologist friend might say, because they understand “systems” better than they understand people. They are “(hyper-)systemizers” not “empathizers.” The point I am not exactly “driving” at but rather skidding into, and cannot seem to avoid, is this: indisputably, most car mechanics are men.
論理哲学論考 (岩波文庫)

論理哲学論考 (岩波文庫)

サルトル全集〈第8巻〉恭しき娼婦 (1952年)

サルトル全集〈第8巻〉恭しき娼婦 (1952年)

自閉症」は圧倒的に男性が多いという話。「自閉症」の男女比は4:1、「アスペルガー」の場合は男性優位がさらに跳ね上がり、或る推計では10:1になるし、アスペルガー博士自身も「自閉的な心」は「男性的知性の極端なヴァリアント(an extreme variant of male intelligence)と言っている。同様に、「哲学」も圧倒的に男優位の世界である*4 。その背景としての(特にアリストテレス以降の)「哲学」における「謎(riddle)」の排除;

It seems likely that women were among the pre-Socratic archi-philosophers. But they were largely oracular. They tended to speak in riddles. The point of philosophy from Aristotle onwards was to resolve and abolish the riddle.

(…) Why does language arise? It arises because of the scope for misunderstanding. Body language, gestures, looks, winks, are not quite enough. I am not a mind-reader. I don’t understand. We need noises and written signs, speech-acts, the Word, logos. If you tell me what you want, I will tell you what I want. Language is a system that arises to compensate for an empathy deficit. But with or without language, I can still exhibit traits of autism. I can misread the signs. Perhaps it would be more exact to say that autism only arises, is only identified, at the same time as there is an expectation of understanding. But if autism is a problem, from certain points of view, autismo is also a solution: it is an assertion that understanding itself can be overvalued.
ここで語られている言語の起源話は興味深い。しかし、もっと問題なのは「理解(understanding)」の意味なのではないかと思う。理解=他人の感じていること・考えていることを言い当てること、でほんとうにいいの? 「誤解(misunderstanding)」もまた「理解」のひとつのかたちなのでは? そういうことをつらつらと考えてしまう。
なお、「自閉症」については、http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20070305/1173111662 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20091106/1257535198 http://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20100212/1265948020も参照のこと。
『荘子』―鶏となって時を告げよ (書物誕生―あたらしい古典入門)

『荘子』―鶏となって時を告げよ (書物誕生―あたらしい古典入門)

ウィトゲンシュタイン入門 (ちくま新書)

ウィトゲンシュタイン入門 (ちくま新書)