Skip to main content
Log in

A Response to Prof. G. Vedaparayana’s Comments on My Paper “Wittgenstein’s Criticism of Moore’s Propositions of Certainty…”

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

“Moore–Wittgenstein controversy” on the problem of certainty should be understood and studied from two perspectives—one from philosophical use of ordinary language (Moore) and the other from using ordinary language for normal linguistic exchange (Wittgenstein). To study it from one and only one perspective—either Moorean or Wittgensteinean—is narrow and biased. Looked at from the normal linguistic exchange, Wittgenstein’s arguments are convincing and Moore’s truisms seem rather odd. But when looked at from philosophical discourse and his defence of common sense, Moore’s truisms are interesting and not faulty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Baldwin, T. (Ed.). (1993/2013). G.E. Moore: Selected writings. London: Routledge.

  • Coliva, A. (2010). Moore and Wittgenstein: Scepticism, certainty, and common sense. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, S. (2003). Wittgenstein’s Criticism of Moore’s propositions of certainty: Some observations. Journal of Indian council of Philosophical Research (JICPR),20, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1946/1961). History of western philosophy. London; George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

  • Stroll, A. (1994). Moore and Wittgenstein on certainty. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedaparayana, G. (2015). Discussion and comments: A response to Prof. Prasad’s Wittgenstein’s criticism of Moore’s propositions of certainty. JICPR,32(1), 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1969/1974). On certainty. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sambasiva Prasad Bandaru.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bandaru, S.P. A Response to Prof. G. Vedaparayana’s Comments on My Paper “Wittgenstein’s Criticism of Moore’s Propositions of Certainty…”. J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res. 37, 159–165 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-019-00186-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-019-00186-2

Keywords

Navigation