From Tractatus to Later Writings and Back – New Implications from the Nachlass

Q2 Arts and Humanities
SATS Pub Date : 2023-04-21 DOI:10.1515/sats-2022-0016
R. D. Queiroz
{"title":"From Tractatus to Later Writings and Back – New Implications from the Nachlass","authors":"R. D. Queiroz","doi":"10.1515/sats-2022-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As a celebration of the Tractatus 100th anniversary it might be worth revisiting its relation to the later writings. From the former to the latter, David Pears recalls that “everyone is aware of the holistic character of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, but it is not so well known that it was already beginning to establish itself in the Tractatus” (The False Prison, 1987). From the latter to the former, Stephen Hilmy’s (The Later Wittgenstein, 1987) extensive study of the Nachlass has helped removing classical misconceptions such as Hintikka’s claim that “Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations almost completely gave up the calculus analogy.” Hilmy points out that even in the Investigations one finds the use of the calculus/game paradigm to the understanding of language, such as “in operating with the word” (Part I, §559) and “it plays a different part in the calculus”. Hilmy also quotes from a late (1946) unpublished manuscript (MS 130) “this sentence has use in the calculus of language”, which seems to be compatible with “asking whether and how a proposition can be verified is only a particular way of asking ‘How do you mean?’.” Central in this back and forth there is an aspect which seems to deserve attention in the discussion of a semantics for the language of mathematics which might be based on (normalisation of) proofs and/or Hintikka/Lorenzen game-dialogue: the explication of consequences. Such a discussion is substantially supported by the use of the open and searchable The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen. These findings are framed within the discussion of the meaning of logical constants in the context of natural deduction style rules of inference.","PeriodicalId":38824,"journal":{"name":"SATS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SATS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2022-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract As a celebration of the Tractatus 100th anniversary it might be worth revisiting its relation to the later writings. From the former to the latter, David Pears recalls that “everyone is aware of the holistic character of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, but it is not so well known that it was already beginning to establish itself in the Tractatus” (The False Prison, 1987). From the latter to the former, Stephen Hilmy’s (The Later Wittgenstein, 1987) extensive study of the Nachlass has helped removing classical misconceptions such as Hintikka’s claim that “Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations almost completely gave up the calculus analogy.” Hilmy points out that even in the Investigations one finds the use of the calculus/game paradigm to the understanding of language, such as “in operating with the word” (Part I, §559) and “it plays a different part in the calculus”. Hilmy also quotes from a late (1946) unpublished manuscript (MS 130) “this sentence has use in the calculus of language”, which seems to be compatible with “asking whether and how a proposition can be verified is only a particular way of asking ‘How do you mean?’.” Central in this back and forth there is an aspect which seems to deserve attention in the discussion of a semantics for the language of mathematics which might be based on (normalisation of) proofs and/or Hintikka/Lorenzen game-dialogue: the explication of consequences. Such a discussion is substantially supported by the use of the open and searchable The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen. These findings are framed within the discussion of the meaning of logical constants in the context of natural deduction style rules of inference.
从《论论》到后来的著作及《纳赫拉斯》的新启示
摘要为了纪念《论》问世100周年,我们有必要重新审视它与后世著作的关系。从前者到后者,大卫·皮尔斯回忆道,“每个人都意识到维特根斯坦后期哲学的整体特征,但它并不为人所知,以至于它已经开始在《哲学论纲》中确立自己的地位”(《虚假的监狱》,1987)。从后者到前者,Stephen Hilmy (the Later Wittgenstein, 1987)对Nachlass的广泛研究有助于消除经典的误解,例如Hintikka声称“Wittgenstein在哲学研究中几乎完全放弃了微积分类比”。希尔米指出,即使在《研究》中,人们也发现微积分/游戏范式用于理解语言,例如“在与词的操作中”(第一部分,§559)和“它在微积分中起着不同的作用”。Hilmy还引用了一篇晚期(1946年)未发表的手稿(MS 130)“这句话在语言演算中有用途”,这似乎与“问一个命题是否可以被验证以及如何被验证只是问‘你的意思是什么?’的一种特殊方式”是一致的。在这种反反复复的讨论中,似乎有一个值得关注的方面是数学语言的语义讨论,这可能是基于(规范化)证明和/或Hintikka/Lorenzen游戏对话:对结果的解释。这样的讨论得到了卑尔根大学开放和可搜索的维特根斯坦档案的大力支持。这些发现是在讨论逻辑常数在自然演绎风格推理规则下的意义时提出的。
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
SATS
SATS Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
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