ABSTRACT
Perhaps we should begin by asking why this awkwardness arises in the instant case. Is it that the impulse given to philosophy by the Circle and that given by Wittgenstein are still not exhausted, and we are unable to find a vantage point above the mêlée from which both can be seen to contribute to some grand pattern? Though here again there is a general predicament, this time in the history of philosophy. It is usual for a philosopher to have his devotees: there are (more or less consciously) Russellians, Popperians, Davidsonians, Kantians and so on. Every point that comes up the late-born adepts can absorb by saying that their prophet had this or that answer or the beginnings of it. This is possible because each philosopher’s system (as it used to be called) defines what is a problem for him. To follow him is to accept that range of problems. And a range of problems is a way of life.
