Wittgenstein's Paradox
International Philosophical Quarterly 45 (1):87-102 (2005)
| Abstract | In the Philosophical Investigations §242, Wittgenstein asserts paradoxically that objectivity is not lost even though communication requires the interplay of agreement in definitions and agreement in judgments. Although Wittgenstein does not claim that objectivity is only determined by this interplay, the objective status of logic initially appears to have disappeared. Wittgenstein here foresees the criticism launched by Kripke that objectivity has been replaced by inter-subjectivity. However, he retorts that the only aspect of objectivity that has vanished is the illusion of any access to an absolute truth independent of language-use. In a transcendental rotation reminiscent of Kant, Wittgenstein maintains that when the notion of a direct trajectory between human consciousness and truth is relinquished, objectivity of any kind relies on rules that language-use generates in the play of a language-game. Wittgenstein grounds objectivity in judgment, and thereby subjects logic to the possibility of communication | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPatricia H. Werhane (1987). Some Paradoxes in Kripke's Interpretation of Wittgenstein. Synthese 73 (2):253 - 273.
George Rudebusch (1986). Hoffman on Kripke's Wittgenstein. Philosophical Research Archives 12:177-182.
P. von Morstein (1980). Kripke, Wittgenstein and the Private Language Argument. Grazer Philosophische Studien 11:61-74.
V. Krebs (1986). Objectivity and Meaning: Wittgenstein on Following Rules. Philosophical Investigations 9 (July):177-186.
Cesare Cozzo (2004). Rule-Following and the Objectivity of Proof. In Annalisa Coliva & Eva Picardi (eds.), Wittgenstein Today. Il poligrafo.
Adam M. Croom (2010). Wittgenstein, Kripke, and the Rule Following Paradox. Dialogue 52 (3):103-109.
William Day & Víctor J. Krebs (eds.) (2010). Seeing Wittgenstein Anew. Cambridge University Press.
Paul A. Boghossian (1989). The Rule-Following Considerations. Mind 98 (392):507-49.
Ronald Suter (1986). Saul Wittgenstein's Skeptical Paradox. Philosophical Research Archives 12:183-193.
Pieranna Garavaso (1988). Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Mathematics: A Reply to Two Objections. Southern Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):179-191.
Sílvio Pinto (1998). Wittgenstein's Anti-Platonism. Grazer Philosophische Studien 56:109-132.
Claudine Verheggen (2003). Wittgenstein's Rule-Following Paradox and the Objectivity of Meaning. Philosophical Investigations 26 (4):285–310.
John W. Cook (2004). The Undiscovered Wittgenstein: The Twentieth Century's Most Misunderstood Philosopher. Humanity Books.
Michael Hymers (1997). Kant's Private-Clock Argument. Kant-Studien 88 (4).
Jeffery Geller (1988). Introspection in Psychology and Philosophy. Philosophy Research Archives 13:471-480.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-01-09Total downloads4 ( #178,844 of 549,753 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,753 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
