Misunderstanding gödel: New arguments about Wittgenstein and new remarks by Wittgenstein

Dialectica 57 (3):279–313 (2003)
The long‐standing issue of Wittgenstein's controversial remarks on Gödel's Theorem has recently heated up in a number of different and interesting directions [, , ]. In their , Juliet Floyd and Hilary Putnam purport to argue that Wittgenstein's‘notorious’ “Contains a philosophical claim of great interest,” namely, “if one assumed. that →P is provable in Russell's system one should… give up the “translation” of P by the English sentence ‘P is not provable’,” because if ωP is provable in PM, PM is ω ‐inconsistent, and if PM is ω‐inconsistent, we cannot translate ‘P’as ’P is not provable in PM’because the predicate‘NaturalNo.’in ‘P’“cannot be…interpreted” as “x is a natural number.” Though Floyd and Putnam do not clearly distinguish the two tasks, they also argue for “The Floyd‐Putnam Thesis,” namely, that in the 1930's Wittgenstein had a particular understanding of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem. In this paper, I endeavour to show, first, that the most natural and most defensible interpretation of Wittgenstein's and the rest of is incompatible with the Floyd‐Putnam attribution and, second, that evidence from Wittgenstein's Nachla strongly indicates that the Floyd‐ Putnam attribution and the Floyd‐Putnam Thesis are false. By way of this examination, we shall see that despite a failure to properly understand Gödel's proof—perhaps because, as Kreisel says, Wittgenstein did not read Gödel's 1931 paper prior to 1942‐Wittgenstein's 1937–38, 1941 and 1944 remarks indicate that Gödel's result makes no sense from Wittgenstein's own perspective
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2003.tb00272.x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 31,786
External links

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
Philosophical Remarks.Ludwig Wittgenstein - 1975 - University of Chicago Press.

View all 22 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Gödel Paradox and Wittgenstein's Reasons.Francesco Berto - 2009 - Philosophia Mathematica 17 (2):208-219.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Was Wittgenstein a Psychologist? (I).James Bogen - 1964 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 7 (1-4):374-378.
Speaking for Oneself: Wittgenstein on Ethics.Matthew Pianalto - 2011 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 54 (3):252 - 276.
Wittgenstein's Remarks on Gödel's Theorem.Graham Priest - 2004 - In Max Kölbel & Bernhard Weiss (eds.), Wittgenstein's Lasting Significance. Routledge.
The Gödel Paradox and Wittgenstein's Reasons.Francesco Berto - 2009 - Philosophia Mathematica 17 (2):208-219.
On Some Much Maligned Remarks of Wittgenstein on Gödel.Charles Sayward - 2001 - Philosophical Investigations 24 (3):262–270.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
62 ( #95,937 of 2,231,530 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #445,507 of 2,231,530 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature