"

Suggestions

(1) Might it be useful to ""update"" Wittgenstein's contributions to various academic and philosophical inquiries? It seems that Wittgenstein's use of language games and place of language in experience has experienced something of a revival among some postmodern academics. 

In particular, his own transition from ""representational"" to ""lived"" semiotic is in itself interesting as a presage of the movement from a ""representational"" to a ""community"" derivation of language / meaning. 

I'm no Wittgenstein expert (just stumbled upon this interesting, if frustrating, discussion) and any credentials I might have had to the ""philosopher's club"" have probably long expired, but a part of my doctoral work did float in and around meaning, words, classification and the uses we make of themvia semiotics. Thus I am eminently unqualified to write such a piece, though I can see a hole on the bookshelf where something like it might just fit. 

That is, philosophy did not end with Adorno, or even with Habermas. Some young buck out there, can you tell whether this connection (Wittgenstein's work on language and postmodern approaches to community-as-language) has developed at all in contemporary (21st century) philosophical work? 

Might be nice to see something pragmatic as well as historic. . .(of course they are not mutually exclusive. . .)

(2) On the issue of Wittgenstein's alleged personal quirks:

Given the absolute delight with which students of philosophy embrace all that is eccentric in the lives of the authors with whose works they are cursed to try and read (see Philosopher's Song. . .any campus)

and 

the somewhat unsettling popular idea that the most brilliant men (almost always men) are proportionately looney (perhaps explaining the less-brilliant lives of mostly normal people?) as well as

the difficulty of actually nailing down with precise sources most of what happened in Europe during either of the ""world wars,"" but in particular the secondthere was an awful lot of bombing and burning by both sides

it might be difficult to come up with primary source material that would either confirm or deny even positions held forth in academic lectures but unpublished, let alone personal eccentricities (after all, if the people writing about these eccentricities were themselves brilliant, their own opinions of normalcy should be correspondingly suspect, see the ""it takes one to know one"" argument)

So

perhaps we should cobble together a ""tribute"" page to which all of the strange and probably unprovable and just as probably unimportant traits, stunts, personal traits, learned tricks and inept relationships of all such ""brilliant but eccentric"" wiki subjects can point?

Thus the eccentricities (which, if not so important, are entertaining enough that folks will be motivated to search dilligently for evidence enough to warrant a smirk) can be acknowledged with a neat and proper cite through a proper point to another wikipedia page

but 

the ""eccentricities"" page itself would be self-evidently immune from the precision of source usually required of biographies of thought, (by the way, why is it we assume that someone's date and place of birth is important to the formation of their intellectual ideas?) 

and would be a riotous read. (potentially Wiki's most commonly cited article)

This might satisfy both the ""biography of ideas"" and the ""biography of real peoples behind the ideas"" folks by allowing the hint or shadow of perhaps something utterly crazy to fall across the screen without an actual commission of the crime of citing one wack-o's account of another wack-o (non-traditional spelling intentional).

Paradoxically, this page might already exist, and merely lacks more ""slept with sheep but only within a platonic framework"" entries in order to accumulate enough word-weight to produce a big enough ripple when it is dropped into the swimming pool of ideas. After all, it wouldn't probably be listed where any boring (and thus non-brilliant) person might expect. . .

 "