维特根斯坦和不解决悖论的哲学意义

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
Matteo Plebani
{"title":"维特根斯坦和不解决悖论的哲学意义","authors":"Matteo Plebani","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V9I2.301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The standard question about the semantic paradoxes is how we should solve them. Wittgenstein raised a different question: whether we should solve them. In this paper, I argue that we have two reasons to take the question raised by Wittgenstein seriously. First, reflecting on the question posed by Wittgenstein might free us from a philosophical ideal, the assumption that we should reason according to strictly valid logical principles, in the sense of Hofweber (2008; 2009). Second, reflecting on Wittgenstein’s question might lead us to realize a possibly obvious, but important, point: the fact that several logical principles are jointly inconsistent does not show that one of them is more problematic than the others, for the same reason why the fact that several plans of action are jointly inconsistent does not show that one of them is more problematic than the others.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":"12 1","pages":"37-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wittgenstein and the philosophical significance of not solving the paradoxes\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Plebani\",\"doi\":\"10.4454/PHILINQ.V9I2.301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The standard question about the semantic paradoxes is how we should solve them. Wittgenstein raised a different question: whether we should solve them. In this paper, I argue that we have two reasons to take the question raised by Wittgenstein seriously. First, reflecting on the question posed by Wittgenstein might free us from a philosophical ideal, the assumption that we should reason according to strictly valid logical principles, in the sense of Hofweber (2008; 2009). Second, reflecting on Wittgenstein’s question might lead us to realize a possibly obvious, but important, point: the fact that several logical principles are jointly inconsistent does not show that one of them is more problematic than the others, for the same reason why the fact that several plans of action are jointly inconsistent does not show that one of them is more problematic than the others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"37-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V9I2.301\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V9I2.301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于语义悖论的标准问题是我们应该如何解决它们。维特根斯坦提出了一个不同的问题:我们是否应该解决它们。在本文中,我认为我们有两个理由认真对待维特根斯坦提出的问题。首先,反思维特根斯坦提出的问题可能会使我们摆脱哲学理想,即假设我们应该根据严格有效的逻辑原则进行推理,在霍夫韦伯(2008;2009)。其次,反思维特根斯坦的问题可能会让我们意识到一个可能明显但重要的观点:几个逻辑原则共同不一致的事实并不表明其中一个比其他更有问题,同样的道理,几个行动计划共同不一致的事实并不表明其中一个比其他更有问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Wittgenstein and the philosophical significance of not solving the paradoxes
The standard question about the semantic paradoxes is how we should solve them. Wittgenstein raised a different question: whether we should solve them. In this paper, I argue that we have two reasons to take the question raised by Wittgenstein seriously. First, reflecting on the question posed by Wittgenstein might free us from a philosophical ideal, the assumption that we should reason according to strictly valid logical principles, in the sense of Hofweber (2008; 2009). Second, reflecting on Wittgenstein’s question might lead us to realize a possibly obvious, but important, point: the fact that several logical principles are jointly inconsistent does not show that one of them is more problematic than the others, for the same reason why the fact that several plans of action are jointly inconsistent does not show that one of them is more problematic than the others.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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