A Response to Dehnel's ‘Defending Wittgenstein’

IF 0.4 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Samuel J. Wheeler
{"title":"A Response to Dehnel's ‘Defending Wittgenstein’","authors":"Samuel J. Wheeler","doi":"10.1111/phin.12413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a reply to ‘Defending Wittgenstein’, Piotr Dehnel's critique of my article, ‘Defending Wittgenstein's Remarks on Cantor from Putnam’. I first show that my position is much more in agreement with Felix Mühlhölzer than Dehnel takes it to be, and that his criticism of me is nothing more than a failure to recognize this. I then show how Dehnel incorrectly reads Wittgenstein as rejecting set theory as false. It is an overemphasis on and a much too narrow picture of ‘applicability’ which leads him to this view. Finally, I conclude by rejecting Dehnel's view that Wittgenstein was a finitist about mathematics.","PeriodicalId":47112,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS","volume":"134 13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12413","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is a reply to ‘Defending Wittgenstein’, Piotr Dehnel's critique of my article, ‘Defending Wittgenstein's Remarks on Cantor from Putnam’. I first show that my position is much more in agreement with Felix Mühlhölzer than Dehnel takes it to be, and that his criticism of me is nothing more than a failure to recognize this. I then show how Dehnel incorrectly reads Wittgenstein as rejecting set theory as false. It is an overemphasis on and a much too narrow picture of ‘applicability’ which leads him to this view. Finally, I conclude by rejecting Dehnel's view that Wittgenstein was a finitist about mathematics.
对德内尔《为维特根斯坦辩护》的回应
这是对皮奥特-德内尔(Piotr Dehnel)对我的文章《从普特南那里捍卫维特根斯坦关于康托的评论》(Defending Wittgenstein's Remarks on Cantor from Putnam)的评论《捍卫维特根斯坦》(Defending Wittgenstein)的答复。我首先说明,我的立场与德内尔所认为的费利克斯-米尔霍尔泽(Felix Mühlhölzer)的立场更为一致,而他对我的批评只不过是没有认识到这一点而已。然后,我将说明德内尔是如何错误地将维特根斯坦解读为否定集合论是错误的。正是对 "适用性 "的过分强调和过于狭隘的理解导致了他的这种观点。最后,我反对德内尔关于维特根斯坦是数学有限论者的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
66.70%
发文量
46
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophical Investigations features articles in every branch of philosophy. Whether focusing on traditional or on new aspects of the subject, it offers thought-provoking articles and maintains a lively readership with an acclaimed discussion section and wide-ranging book reviews. Special issues are published on topics of current philosophical interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信