Describe the aroma of coffee—why can’t it be done? Do we lack the words? And for what are words lacking?—But how do we get the idea that such a description must after all be possible? Have you ever felt the lack of such a description? Have you tried to describe the aroma and not succeeded? (PI, 610).
Wittgenstein’s series of question marks are illuminating. Perhaps, we can describe coffee, e.g. an espresso, a macchiato, a latte… we can utter criteria, such as, pure, earthy, fruity, strong, kick, and so on. But to describe its aroma?
Thesis 1. To philosophize is to have lacked the words to describe X, where X is some experience-event.
Thesis 2. Philosophy begins with the lack of words to describe.
Thesis 3. From thesis 1 and 2, then to philosophize is to find the language.
Anybody, who has attempted to describe, to use words, to grasp the transcendent, the ineffable, that which goes beyond language it seems… has grasped the task of philosophy.
So isn’t Wittgenstein delimiting asethetic description(s)! Or is he getting at the end of limits/boundaries? The indeterminate?
In the notes on description from “Lectures on Aesthetics” Wittgenstein poses the problem of the lack of descriptions in everyday conversations.
The insight is that just because we cannot find the words to describe X does not entail cannot, but merely not yet… we can find the words, at later date…
Imagine: “I am at a lack of words to describe…” here and now; the words come to me, I describe such and such at a later time.
But Wittgenstein is not claiming that it is not possible, but rather everything is possible:
“the idea that a description must after all be possible.”
Its not that actuality implies possibility. Possibility is actuality. Observe everyday life: I find the language… fragments.
Of course, we can describe the aroma of coffee. We just do!
What is illuminating, is that we do, not that we can: the different description(s)! And further how they illuminate our shared aesthetics.
fragments of philosophy 