ResumoAinda que Schopenhauer não seja nominalmente referido no Tractatus, não há dúvida razoável de que ele esteja ali presente, particularmente nos aforismos sobre o solipsismo e a ética. Nesses aforismos, Wittgenstein apropria-se de várias teses e movimentos argumentativos que encontra em O Mundo como Vontade e Representação, mas faz uso deles para seus próprios fins filosóficos. Ao serem deslocados de seucontexto original ao contexto do Tractatus, eles mudam radicalmente de sentido e são incorporados a um percurso crítico lógico que resulta (...) em uma visão dos temas tradicionais da metafísica e da ética muito diferente daquela que resulta do percurso epistemológico de Schopenhauer em O Mundo como Vontade e Representação. A análise minuciosa desse deslocamento distorcivo pode, por contraste, ensinar algo importante a respeito da singularidade de cada um desses percursos críticos.AbstractAlthough Schopenhauer is not mentioned by name in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, there is no reasonable doubt that he is there, particularly in the aphorisms about solipsism and ethics. In these aphorisms, Wittgenstein appropriates several theses and argumentative movements that he finds in The World as Will and Representation, but uses them for his own philosophical purposes. When displaced from their original context to the context of the Tractatus, their meaning changes radically and they are incorporated into a logical critical path that results in a vision of the traditional themes of metaphysics and ethics very different from the one that results from Schopenhauer’s epistemological path in The World as Will and Representation. The detailed analysis of this kind of distorting displacement can, by means of contrast, teach us something important about the uniqueness of each of these critical paths. (shrink)

Regarding the famous Sea Battle Argument, which Aristotle presents in De Interpretatione 9, there has never been a general agreement not only about its correctness but also, and mainly, about what the argument really is. According to the most natural reading of the chapter, the argument appeals to a temporal concept of truth and concludes that not every statement is always either true or false. However, many of Aristotle’s followers and commentators have not adopted this reading. I believe that it (...) has faced so much resistance for reasons of hermeneutic charity: denying the law of universal bivalence seems to be overly disruptive to logical orthodoxy – the kind of logical orthodoxy represented by what we now call classical propositional logic, much of which Aristotle clearly supports in many texts. I intend to show that the logical-semantic theses that the traditional reading finds in De Interpretatione 9 are much more conservative than they may seem to be at first glance. First, I will show that they complement, and do not contradict in any way, the orthodox definitions of the concepts of truth and statement that Aristotle advances in other texts. Second, by resorting in an anachronistic vein to concepts and methods peculiar to contemporary logic, I will show that a trivalent modal semantics conforming to those theses can be built for a standard formal language of the classical propositional calculus. It is remarkable that reasonable concepts of logical truth and logical consequence that may be defined on the basis of this trivalent modal semantics are coextensive with their orthodox counterparts, the concepts of tautology and tautological consequence of classical bivalent and extensional semantics. (shrink)