victor: an excerpt from my friend's paper (its a long one):

"If Wittgenstein (Witt) had read Levy-Bruhl’s (LB) discourse on primitive thought, he would have agreed with parts of LB’s argument of primitive thought but disagreed with others.
To LB, every type of society has its distinct mentality, and each mentality is derived from the collective representations of its respective society, which are obligatory. In other words, a society’s mentality is imposed on and binds an individual to his society. The collective representations that form a society’s mentality are the fundamental elements on which the society operates. Witt would have agreed that the primitives have a different mentality because he countered Frazer’s theory that the primitive man is forming fallacious theories about his world. The primitive man is not making fallacious theories because he is not forming theories about his world at all. With the idea of a different mentality, the primitive man assumes a certain set of values which are his fundamental understandings of the world. To a primitive man, there is no alternative way of perceiving things, just as there is no alternative way for Frazer to look at religion but the one in which science will eventually replace all religions. However, Witt would not have agreed with LB’s suggestion that there are distinctive mentalities. According to LB, there are two major types of mentalities – the primitive and the civilized. Witt would have countered this view with the same argument that he put forth concerning Frazer’s use of the word “ghost” in describing a primitive’s perspective, as Frazer obviously understood the primitive’s view if he used a familiar word to describe it. If there were distinctive mentalities, Witt would have argued, we would be unable to communicate with the primitives because we form understandings of things by making connections. If our mentalities were mutually exclusive (distinct, discrete), there would be no way for us to make connections to others’ perspectives. While Witt was an anti-universalist, he acknowledged the similarities (i.e. connections) between different perspectives.
Furthermore, LB believed that the main difference between the primitive and the civilized minds is that the civilized mind is scientifically orientated while the primitive is dominated with the supernatural. Witt would have again criticized LB, as LB was clearly crossing his own mentality boundaries of the scientific into the supernatural. To be able to arrive at the notions of “scientific” and “supernatural”, one has to be aware of both perspectives. Since LB knew about the essence of the primitive mentality (the supernatural), he was able to identify this essence within himself. [Witt might have commented that LB’s spiritual life was broader Frazer’s.] If LB did not know what the supernatural was, with his civilized mentality, he would not be able to distinguish between science and the supernatural, just as the primitive is not able to do so. In the civilized mind, science and the supernatural are two opposing forces. If there is no rich, there is no poor. Science is defined by the lack of supernatural forces, and vice versa. In addition, to the primitive, science and the supernatural are one. The primitive man does not believe in supernatural forces, just as he does not believe that a banana is yellow. Supernatural forces exist, and a banana is yellow. These are the facts of life. Witt would have argued that there is no distinction between science and the supernatural in the primitive mind. If there is no distinction, how can LB say that the primitive mind is supernaturally orientated? If we are 3-dimension creatures, how can we move in the directions of the fourth?
LB also suggested that the primitives are prelogical in the sense that their reasoning is not subjected to the same conditions of Aristotelian logic, as they do not avoid contradictions. The primitives reason with the rules and mentality that they were given by their society. Witt would have agreed with this, for different peoples have different perspectives. LB went on to suggest that the primitive man does not reason incorrectly individually, but the primitive society as a whole reasons incorrectly. As Witt refuted Frazer’s claim that the primitive man errors individually, Witt would have refuted LB’s similar claim about an entire society. Again, Witt would have argued that no error is made because a primitive society is not formulating theories about the world but simply prescribing a set of values and perspectives with which its members may function.
Another major point of LB’s discourse on the primitive thought is the law of mystical participation. The collective representations of the primitives are comprised of a network of mystical participations. To the primitives, all things are connected and are affected by one another. With this, Witt would have agreed. The primitive’s way of understanding the world fits snugly with Witt’s perspicuous presentation, which is a holistic understanding of the world by establishing connections between different things. Witt would have suggested that when the primitive man participates in his shadow, his name, his totem, etc, he is making the final connection to himself. LB expressed that as everything is connected, to the primitive man, there is no distinction between objective and mystical actions. [LB seemed to have contradicted his previous argument. He is as prelogical as his primitives!] Witt would have agreed with this because, as stated earlier, the primitive perceive science (the objective) and the supernatural (the mystical) as one."

(my response to it)

I think it would have helped alot if I read those papers because it references alot of things that I just had to take for granted. Its an interesting subject though. Did they ever talk about the evolution of the primitive to the modern? Because it seems that the dichotomy between these two societies existed well into the 20th century. Several isolated cultures still existed in the pacific, africa, and south america alongside the "developed" civilization so then wouldn't we have to further delineate or at the very least define how we define a society as a whole as primitive or modern? Sociological ideologies were all derieved from these primitive mentalities so arguably, in general, they both share common characteristics. The modern societies all retain ideologies from the past (Shinto, Hindu, Islamic, Judeo-Christian, Native American,Aboriginal... these being example of modern ideologies developed from
primitive thought) so perhaps our modern thought is built upon the same mystical principals that they were criticizing in your paper. People, in general all, possess the same capability to progress and adapt into either a primitive or modern mentality so therefore it is unfair to characterize an individual as being primitive or not... its just a result of society... but i suppose that was what u were talking about. ahah ok, im being distracted by tv... ill write more later.

(her response to me)

yes. these thinkers are from the turn of the 19th to 20th
century, so they were very much influenced by Darwin's theory of
evolution. Frazer, one of the thinkers i referenced to, claimed that
religion evolved in
the following way: magic to religion to science. he claimed that ultimately,
the people in the primitive societies will see that they have reasoned
fallaciously about the world around them and eventually become
scientists. this evolutionary approach and others like it have been
thrown out because
obviously, what makes Frazer higher up the evolutionary ladder and what makes
the primitive man lower down? Frazer was analyzing the primitive religions
(and the origin of religions) through his ethnocentric views. also, Frazer
offered no mechanism in which this evolution of religion could have operated
except that the smarter people in the population would eventually see fault
in religion.

also, concerning your definition of society. yes, that is a problem too.
Durkheim, another thinker on the topic, said that religions cannot be
analyzed from the psychological view of Frazer, in which the primitive man
reasons his way to science. religions have to be analyzed by their relation
to the societies. religion is a function of society. religion IS society,
in a sense, if there is no society, there is no religion.  ¶ 3:00 PM