ABSTRACT
D. Z. Phillips imaginatively discusses many different issues raised by critics of Wittgenstein's 'Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough': the relation of signs to magic and metaphysics; the senses in which contemplative philosophy can be regarded as descriptive rather than prescriptive. He suggests, can best be illuminated from the standpoint of what he calls 'contemplative philosophy'. It is because Frazer and most modern philosophy lack this contemplative spirit that they so badly misinterpret religious ritual and religion generally. Both types of philosopher thus confound philosophical reflection with their own personal beliefs and in so doing they not only give a confused account of religious belief but fail to give contemplative attention to the various possible forms of religion; indeed, possible forms of atheism. One does not have to be a contemplative philosopher to argue that Kai Nielsen's complaint against what he called Wittgensteinian fideism was too crudely formulated.
