§12.

Through the intensity in their persistent strivings both Flaubert and Wittgenstein thus filled the void of their respective bubble-person. And the bubble at the same time was (!) the intensity of their persistence! They never tried anything but to use their position as, and their comprehension of themselves as complete strangers. They never tried to adjust in any formidable manner. ( Alas! [smile].) But they managed to contribute to our understanding of the world by being sceptics. They got much of their own happiness in being sceptics, although this never led to them being rich and wealthy persons. They never discussed wealth. ( Now Wittgenstein did, since he was born wealthy, and he claimed that money was a hindrance to any persons, so he – almost maliciously, one might think, gave his money away to his sisters in Vienna! [smile].)
It seems that both Flaubert and Wittgenstein were self-absorbed persons. They were no philanthropists. Indeed. But Wittgenstein thought it was perfectly rational to leave philosophy during WWII and Flaubert thought freedom of speech and freedom to be different and freedom to seek happiness was worth fighting for. ( The big fight in the times of both Wittgenstein and Flaubert was that against Romanticism, which was the great suppressing force of the time in the spiritual field alongside the church.). It was worthwhile to show to the world the secrets in Emma Bovary´s heart, although the conservatives in France were horrified. They did not want to know about such secrets. ( Later, in the year of 1900, Sigmund Freud should show the world other secrets in his Traumdeutung – a book that sold very poorly, but still was eagerly discussed at every coffee table in Central Europe during the years to come - , but then in the liberal climate in Vienna, where almost nothing was forbidden, except for smearing the Kaiser, the nearly invisible head of the Habsburg dynasty.)
Through the history of philosophy and literature skepticism runs as a red ribbon. Ever since Homer, Socrates, Sophocles and Sappho skepticism is just as important as is passion. The nature of a good authorship is its skeptical wholeheartedness. Both Flaubert and Wittgenstein had huge amounts of energy, and they managed to trust their ability to navigate in new, undiscovered, unsure waters.
Wittgenstein lived a simple life in Cambridge, and he enjoyed being worshipped by his students. Sometimes he was on tour with one or two of them. He liked climbing moutains. And he went to the movies and was especially fond of Hollywood western films. While lecturing he was an improviser, and it seems – to the now living onlooker – to have been more like a standup comedy than anything else. But there were also big quarrels like on the occasion when Popper was visiting. ( Cf. the book "Wittgenstein´s poker".). The philosophical quarrel was about the nature of the concept of philosophy.
In Vienna the Wittgensteins had been very wealthy, like I said. Wittgenstein´s mother was an extremely beautiful woman, and very gifted. She was an excellent piano player. She had had a good education on this instrument (although she had not, like the wife of Charles Darwin have had Chopin as a teacher.), and she insisted upon that her children should have education in music too. But Ludwig was omitted from this schedule. It is unclear why his parents looked upon him as almost retarded. Later in life he played the clarinet, and he became a master whistler. Once in a small pension in Norway ( where he had a short love affair with Alan Turing, which led to no happiness on either side ) he announced, together with a piano player, a whistle concert, - I think it was a symphony by Mozart – and he whistled the entire symphony through. And in his papers are notes on music, on good and bad composers. Now Wittgenstein also turned to sculpture, but mostly his joys were reading books. And he classified authors in his own way. To Wittgenstein very many authors, of whom we think they fit into secular branches – were mystics! Wittgenstein liked to look upon much in the world as puzzling, and mystical. He thus not only read the usual mystics and enjoyed reading the works of theirs, like Juan de la Cruz, but almost every author became under his eyes transformed to something they themselves never at all tried to be, or appear as.
Thus life became a giant adventure to Wittgenstein. And it was not only the works and habits of other people who stood out to him as purely mystical. He also looked upon himself as a strange person. On the eve of turning forty years old he wrote:” 40 years old and still an idiot.”.
Thus the world to Wittgenstein seemed topsy-turvy, but he had the strength and honesty to make this topsy-turvy look extremely interesting, and to make the very interst and onlook seem rational. Because – that is true … - both Flaubert and Wittgenstein were very honest people! They were rational and honest. ( Yes, it can be rational to regard things as "mystical" I think, very much the way Wittg. himself thought it was.). Both of them were all their life met both by suspicion and by applause, but they did not let this make an impact on their own thinking, not of the world or of themselves. This was also the case with our next fellow bubble-person, the Czech sceptic and great manufacturer of new spiritual glasses: Franz Kafka.

panicroom