And he iguores his own citation shortly thereafter to Wittgenstein, who says, "[flor a large class of cases-though not for all-in which we employ the word 'meaning' it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language." Winter has apparently become aware of these inconsistencies, for in his reply to Patterson, composed after his principal paper, he attempts to distance himself from the reader's understandable conclusion that he intends to portray Wittgenstein's views when he gives us, in his first paper, long quotations from Wittgenstein, and numerous citations to texts of Wittgenstein. When, Winter says, he referred to "'the Wittgensteinian,' the careful reader will have discerned, I trust, that this was not old Ludwig himself but a composite of Bobbitt, Rorty, and Fish as documented by my citations." I will return to this bizarre alibi in a moment, but for present purposes it really does not matter whether Winter is providing his understanding of Wittgenstein or of Wittgensteinians.

QUESTION: Why does Winter's 'composite' alibi combine Bobbitt, Rorty, and Fish rather than engaging Wittgenstein directly?

Philip Chase Bobbitt, Philip Chase Bobbitt - Refl…, loc. 698