Wittgenstein's therapies: From rules to hinges

Recently Wittgenstein's claim to be primarily engaged in a kind of therapy for the problems that trouble people in the grip of a certain picture of how things must be has been strongly emphasized. The form the therapy takes is to display various kinds of grammatical errors in the pathological practice. In Wittgenstein's late work, On Certainty, the role of the concept of rule as the ground of a practice is extended to include a different kind of grounding in “hinges”. I argue that there is a therapeutic role for the work of bringing to light the “hinges” that hold fast when the door of philosophy turns. I contrast examples of Wittgensteinian therapy where the cure is achieved by a display of grammatical rules, to cases in which the cure depends on emphasizing the role of a hinge or hinges in pathological confusions of thought in psychology.     

Wittgenstein's Account of Truth

Books reviewed: Sara Ellenbogen, Wittgenstein's Account of Truth, Suny Press, 2003, vii–xv + 148.
Reviewed by Randy Ramal, Claremont Graduate University
602 South College Avenue
Claremont, CA 91711
USA     

Wittgenstein's philosophies of mathematics

Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics has long been notorious. Part of the problem is that it has not been recognized that Wittgenstein, in fact, had two chief post-Tractatus conceptions of mathematics. I have labelled these the calculus conception and the language-game conception. The calculus conception forms a distinct middle period. The goal of my article is to provide a new framework for examining Wittgenstein's philosophies of mathematics and the evolution of his career as a whole. I posit the Hardyian Picture, modelled on the Augustinian Picture, to provide a structure for Wittgenstein's work on the philosophy of mathematics. Wittgenstein's calculus period has not been properly recognized, so I give a detailed account of the tenets of that stage in Wittgenstein's career. Wittgenstein's notorious remarks on contradiction are the test case for my theory of his transition. I show that the bizarreness of those remarks is largely due to the calculus conception, but that Wittgenstein's later language-game account of mathematics keeps the rejection of the Hardyian Picture while correcting the calculus conception's mistakes.The following abbreviations are used in this article to refer to Wittgenstein's works: WWK: Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle: Conversations Recorded by Friedrich Waismann, ed. B. F. McGuinness, trans. J. Schulte and B. F. McGuinness, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979; CAM I: Wittgenstein's Lectures: Cambridge, 1930–32, ed. D. Lee, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982; CAM II: Wittgenstein's Lectures: Cambridge, 1932–35; ed. A. Ambrose, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982; PG: Philosophical Grammar, ed. R. Rhees, trans. A. Kenny, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974; BIB: The Blue and Brown Books, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958; LFM: Wittgenstein's Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics: Cambridge, 1939, ed. C. Diamond, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976; RFM: Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, ed. G. H. von Wright, R. Rhees, G. E. M. Anscombe, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, revised ed., Cambridge: MIT Press, 1978; PI: Philosophical Investigations, ed. G. E. M. Anscombe, R. Rhees, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, New York: Macmillan Company, 1953; Z: Zettel, ed. G. E. M. Anscombe, G. H. von Wright, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970.References to PI and Z are to remark number; references to RFM are to part number (Roman numerals) and remark number (Arabic numerals); and references to the other works are to page numbers. As the evolutionary nature of Wittgenstein's work is an important theme of this article, following the abbreviation for the book in the text I have put in brackets the date of the book or the part of the book from which the quotation comes.     

The Origins of Wittgenstein's Imaginary Scenarios: Something Old, Something New

The imaginary scenarios that appear in nearly every work of the later Wittgenstein – ones involving laughing cattle, disembodied eyes that see, and the like – are decidedly absent from the Tractatus. What necessitated this change in methodology? A comparison of the Tractatus with the Philosophical Remarks, Wittgenstein's first major work after his return to philosophy, reveals that these devices are the product of something old and something new. The rationale for these devices is already present in the notion of a “propositional variable,” but Wittgenstein had little use for them until he rejected the phenomenological language and laconic style of the Tractatus.     

维特根斯坦对于经验的现象学再现

译者前言 必须承认,关于维特根斯坦的思想转型期(大约从1929至1936年),我国学术界还缺乏系统的研究,该时期维氏本人对"现象学"的短暂研究(这一研究乃是维氏在欧陆现象学运动的影响之外独立进行的)则更不为汉语哲学界所知.     

论维特根斯坦对弗洛伊德的心理分析的批判

维特根斯坦自诩为弗洛伊德的信徒,但他对弗洛伊德的心理分析的批判也贯穿始终。联系维氏整体的哲学思想,他对弗洛伊德的批判主要体现在三方面:弗洛伊德建立在"自由联想"方法基础上的心理治疗是某种"表象-本质"的理论模式;"无意识"和"意识"的理论建构属于语法误用;原因和理由的混淆导致其理论只是某种"说服"的伪科学。因此,弗洛伊德思想体现了维特根斯坦所称的坏的思想风格,对弗洛伊德的批判正体现了维氏对"坏的哲学"的批判。     

论前期维特根斯坦的逻辑真理观

维特根斯坦在其早期代表作《逻辑哲学论》中深入探讨了逻辑真理的理解问题.然而当今学界流行的看法是,维特根斯坦有着最狭隘的逻辑真理观逻辑真理即重言式.本文试图澄明维氏使用重言式概念的原初含义,并从其以逻辑为基础的世界观、真值函项理论及优范式理论等角度分别加以阐述,说明维氏所理解的逻辑真理乃穷尽可能的必然,而对逻辑真理的这种理解同样可推广到谓词逻辑,并指出用穷尽可能来定义逻辑必然并不会导致恶性循环.     

The origins of Wittgenstein's verificationism

The question is raised of the source of the extreme verificationist views which Wittgenstein put forward immediately after his return to philosophy in 1929. Since these views appear to be radically different from the ideas put forward in theTractatus some explanation of this dramatic new turn in Wittgenstein's thought certainly seems to be called for. Wittgenstein's very low level of interest in philosophy between 1918 and shortly before his return to philosophy is documented. Attention then focuses on the crucial period immediately before Wittgenstein's return to Cambridge, and it is shown that in this period he encountered only two new philosophical influences. These were the ideas of Brouwer and the ideas of the Vienna Circle. Each of these is examined and neither is found capable of providing an explanation of the source of Wittgenstein's verificationism. This leads to a reconsideration of the underlying assumption that Wittgenstein's verificationism does represent the radical departure from the ideas of theTractatus which it appears to. It is argued that the only way we can account for Wittgenstein's evident approval of the reading of theTractatus which he must have encountered in his meetings with members of the Vienna Circle is by concluding that, far from being incompatible with his earlier ideas, some form of verificationism must always have been implicit in theTractatus.     

Editorial Approaches to Wittgenstein's Nachlass: Towards a Historical Appreciation

Building on the unpublished correspondence between Ludwig Wittgenstein's literary executors Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright, this paper sketches the historical development of different editorial approaches to Wittgenstein's Nachlass. Using the metaphor of a ladder, it is possible to distinguish seven significant “rungs” or “steps” in the history of editing Wittgenstein's writings. The paper focuses particularly on the first four rungs, elucidating how Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright developed different editorial approaches that resulted in significant differences in their editions. The paper sheds light on how these editorial differences are grounded in the editors' divergent understandings of their task. It is suggested that future research may investigate the development of editorial approaches to Wittgenstein's Nachlass as a human story of philosophical inheritance.     

From Metaphysics and Philosophical Theses to Grammar: Wittgenstein's Turn

The paper discusses the question ‘what does Wittgenstein mean by not having theses in philosophy?’ His conception of philosophy without theses, as this is articulated in his later work, is understood as a response to the problem of dogmatism in philosophy and a non‐metaphysical form of philosophy. I argue that although already the Tractatus aims at a philosophy devoid of theses, it involves a relapse back to such theses. Its conception of philosophical clarification involves a particular conception of the essence of propositions. This way the form of the activity of clarification is determined by a philosophical/metaphysical thesis. In his later philosophy Wittgenstein, however, manages to solve this problem. His solution, explained with the help of the metaphor of ‘turning our whole investigation around’, consists of a change in the comprehension of the status of philosophical statements. For instance rules (e.g. definitions) and examples are understood as what he calls ‘objects of comparison’. Such objects of comparison are something that cases of language use (to be investigated with the purpose of clarification) are to be compared with, but the philosopher is not to make the claim that such objects of comparison show what the cases of language use under examination must be. The modality (expressed by ‘must’) is a characteristic of the philosopher's mode of presentation. It should not be claimed to be a feature of his object of investigation (the uses of language to be clarified).     

Hertz and Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Science

The German physicist Heinrich Hertz played a decisive role for Wittgenstein's use of a unique philosophical method. Wittgenstein applied this method successfully to critical problems in logic and mathematics throughout his life. Logical paradoxes and foundational problems including those of mathematics were seen as pseudo-problems requiring clarity instead of solution. In effect, Wittgenstein's controversial response to David Hilbert and Kurt Gödel was deeply influenced by Hertz and can only be fully understood when seen in this context. To comprehend the arguments against the metamathematical programme, and to appreciate how profoundly the philosophical method employed actually shaped the content of Wittgenstein's philosophy, it is necessary to make an intellectual biographical reconstruction of their philosophical framework, tracing the Hertzian elements in the early as well as in the later writings. In order to write Wittgenstein's biography, we have to take seriously the coherence of his thought throughout his life, and not let convenient philosophical ideologies be our guidance in drawing up a “Wittgensteinian philosophy”. To do so, we have to take a second look upon what he actually wrote, not only in the already published material, but in the entire Nachlass. Clearly, this is not easily done, but it is a necessary task in the historical reconstruction of Wittgenstein's life and work.     

Wittgenstein's Use of the Word 'Aspekt'

Wittgenstein frequently uses the word 'aspect' (Aspekt) in his writings from 1947 to 1949. There he uses the word along with aspect-seeing and aspect-change, so that readers are misled into thinking his primary concern in using the word is something like Gestalt psychology or philosophy of psychology per se. However, Wittgenstein's late treatment of aspect is only a special case of a more general problem, namely phenomenology. In the middle-period writings, the word 'aspect' refers to a phenomenological object. Basically, Wittgenstein's aspect means the way an object appears to us. For him, an 'aspect' is a phenomenological object. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.