The Voices of Wittgenstein: The Vienna Circle

Book Information The Voices of Wittgenstein: The Vienna Circle. The Voices of Wittgenstein: The Vienna Circle Ludwig Wittgenstein and Friedrich Waismann, ed. Gordon Baker, London : Routledge, 2003, 528, US$100 (cloth) Edited by Gordon Baker. By Ludwig Wittgenstein. and Friedrich Waismann. Routledge. London. Pp. 528. US$100 (cloth:),     

The Voices of Wittgenstein: The Vienna Circle

Book reviewed:
The Voices of Wittgenstein: The Vienna Circle – Ludwig Wittgenstein and Friedrich Waismann (Transcribed, Edited and with an Introduction by Gordon Baker; Translated by Gordon Baker, Michael Mackett, John Connolly and Vasilis Politis); Routledge; London and New York, 2003 (Pp xlviii + 558. German and English Texts on Facing Pages.)     

Coherence,anti-realism and the Vienna Circle

Some members of the Vienna Circle argued for a coherence theory of truth. Their coherentism is immune to standard objections. Most versions of coherentism are unable to show why a sentence cannot be true even though it fails to cohere with a system of beliefs. That is, it seems that truth may transcend what we can be warranted in believing. If so, truth cannot consist in coherence with a system of beliefs. The Vienna Circle's coherentists held, first, that sentences are warranted by coherence with a system of beliefs. Next they drew upon their verification theory of meaning, a consequence of which is that truth cannot transcend what can be warranted. The coherence theory of knowledge and verificationism together entail that truth cannot transcend what can be warranted by coherence with a system of beliefs. The Vienna Circle's argument for coherentism is strong and anticipates contemporary anti-realism.     

维也纳学派在中国的命运

洪谦先生是维也纳学派在中国的主要传人,但在历史上,第一个向国内学术界介绍维也纳学派的哲学家是张申府及其胞弟张岱年.洪谦对维也纳学派思想在中国的传播起到了关键作用.冯友兰也曾对维也纳学派做过介绍和分析,并试图利用逻辑分析的方法处理形而上学问题.金岳霖及其学生殷海光从逻辑学研究的角度对维也纳学派哲学在中国的传播发挥了作用.洪谦与冯友兰之间在20世纪40年代发生的学术争论,反映了中西两种哲学思维方式的差异.虽然经历了政治上的磨难,但正是由于洪谦先生毕生坚持了对维也纳学派思想的研究和发展,最终成为国际著名的哲学家.洪谦与冯友兰之间的思想交锋也反映了他们对哲学性质的不同理解.     

Yet Another Run around the Circle

In a recent article, D. A. Truncellito (2004, ‘Running in Circles about Begging the Question’, Argumentation 18, 325–329) argues that the discussion between Robinson (1971, ‘Begging the Question’, Analysis 31, 113–117), Sorensen (1996, ‘Unbeggable Questions’, Analysis 56, 51–55) and Teng (1997, ‘Sorensen on Begging the Question’, Analysis 57, 220–222) shows that we need to distinguish between logical fallacies, which are mistakes in the form of the argument, and rhetorical fallacies, which are mistakes committed by the arguer. While I basically agree with Truncellito’s line of thinking, I believe this distinction is not tenable and offer a different view. In addition, I will argue that the conclusion to draw from the abovementioned discussion is that validity is not a sufficient criterion of begging the question, and that we should be wary of the containment-metaphor of a deductive argument.     

时间之来与去——围绕梅洛-庞蒂

本文围绕梅洛-庞蒂思想中的时间问题,通过对他的描述的一个“再-描述”,尝试将时间阐释为来与去的双向运动.梅洛-庞蒂拒绝单纯相继的时间概念,而将时间的统一性追溯到一个以活生生的呈现为核心的呈现场.然而时间的自身-触发特性打开了一道裂隙,将我们带入再现与筹划的永久循环.为解决此一问题,作者将来与去的双向运动理解为一个作为感染与反应的一体两面的事件.感染与反应的交织开启了一个“非-地”,而这正是新事物生发之地.梅洛-庞蒂的时间的交叉应该去除同时性与可逆性的遮蔽,来与去不构成循环.     

Wittgenstein and Scepticism Wittgenstein at Work: Method in the PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Books reviewed:
Wittgenstein and Scepticism , Denis McManus (ed.). London & New York: Routledge, 2004. xi, 305 pp. $50 hb. Wittgenstein at Work: Method in the PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS , Erich Ammereller and Eugen Fischer (eds.). London & New York: Routledge, 2004. xxix, 263 pp. $50 hb. Reviewed by William H. Brenner, Old Dominion University Philosophy Department Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529-0083, USA wbrenner@odu.edu     

Wittgenstein: Meaning and Judgement

Books reviewed:
Michael Luntley, Wittgenstein: Meaning and Judgement , Blackwell Publishers, 2003, ix + 187, price £16.99 p.b. Reviewed by Daniel Whiting, University of Reading Department of Philosophy University of Reading Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AA danieljwhiting@hotmail.com     

On Certainty: Wittgenstein and Einstein

The paper focuses on the role of relativistic ideas in Wittgenstein's philosophy. In particular, it focuses on On Certainty (1969), where in (305), Wittgenstein explicitly invokes Einstein's theory of relativity: “Here once more there is needed a step like the one taken in relativity theory.” The aim of the paper is to establish a connection between Wittgenstein and Einstein that is both theoretically and exegetically sound. In particular, the paper argues that Wittgenstein's reaction to scepticism closely resembles Einstein's reaction to the ether.     

Wittgenstein and the Dream Hypothesis

The paper deals with Wittgenstein’s treatment of radical skepticism. He holds from his earliest work to his last that skepticism is senseless and therefore no rebuttal, such as G.E. Moore offered, is necessary.