Explaining 'the hardness of the logical must': Wittgenstein on grammar, arbitrariness and logical necessity
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Investigations 24 (1):1–29 (2001)
This paper explains Wittegnstein’s understanding of the ‘grammar’ of our language, tracing its origins in the Tractatus’s concept of logical syntax, and then examining the senses in which Wittegnstein, in his later work, viewed grammar as being ‘arbitrary’. Then, armed with this understanding, it moves on to the task of examining how, within the framework of a Wittegnsteinian view of language, we should understand the inescapable ‘compellingness’ of logical necessity – what Wittegnstein calls the “hardness of the logical must”. Whereas it is often thought that Wittegnstein’s views on the nature of the ‘grammar’ of our concpets leads him towards a vitiatingly conventionalist or anti‐realist understanding of necessity, in which its logical ‘superhardness’ becomes problematic, this paper will argue that there is actually no such tension in Wittegnstein’s thought. In fact, it will be argued, an understanding of the ways in which our conceptual grammar is arbitrary casts a great deal of light on how it is that our concepts can nevertheless support a logically superhard, and normatively commanding, notion of necessity. In support of this view, I distinguish Wittegnstein’s views on necessity from the ‘classical’ conventionalism of the Vienna Circle, and from the radical conventionalism of Michael Dummett, and defend Wittegnstein’s view from a powerful recent attack from Quassim Cassam
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
P. M. S. Hacker (2003). Wittgenstein, Carnap and the New American Wittgensteinians. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):01–23.
J. H. Harris (1982). What's So Logical About the “Logical” Axioms? Studia Logica 41 (2-3):159 - 171.
Kevin C. Klement (2004). Putting Form Before Function: Logical Grammar in Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. Philosophers' Imprint 4 (2):1-47.
José Hierro Pescador (1985). Mundos Imposibles. Theoria 1 (1):143-157.
Gordon P. Baker (2010). Wittgenstein-- Rules, Grammar, and Necessity: Essays and Exegesis of 185-242. Wiley-Blackwell.
Marc Lange (2005). A Counterfactual Analysis of the Concepts of Logical Truth and Necessity. Philosophical Studies 125 (3):277 - 303.
Royce P. Jones (1985). The Logical Status of Brain Death Criteria. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (4):387-396.
Oskari Kuusela (2008). The Struggle Against Dogmatism: Wittgenstein and the Concept of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
Barry G. Stroud (1965). Wittgenstein and Logical Necessity. Philosophical Review 74 (October):504-518.
A. B. Levison (1964). Wittgenstein and Logical Necessity. Inquiry 7 (1-4):367-373.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads47 ( #65,580 of 1,707,731 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #160,112 of 1,707,731 )
How can I increase my downloads?