Volume 17, Issue 1

Wittgenstein's Tractatus [6] contains some very striking theses. We read, e.g., that \in a sense" we could not be wrong in logic, and that the whole subject matter of the theory of modalities could be reconstructed on the ground of the insights in the mechanism of the linguistic reference. Yet in the light of the last sentences of Tractatus the whole semantics turns out to be principally ineffable. In our paper we will try to clarify these matters. We show how these theses could be made plausible in the context of the transcendental method of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

Language is ruled by conventions. In order to understand how language functions we need to know what conventions are. According to David Lewis conventions are regularities in action or in action and belief, that perpetuate themselves because they serve some common interest. Ruth Millikan has criticized this analysis for being too complex. She claims to offer an analysis in simpler terms that does neither rely on regularities nor rationality. She defines what she calls “natural conventions” as patterns that are reproduced due partly to weight of precedent. After brief outlines of the two proposals it is shown in this article that Millikans argument against Lewis’ analysis is based on a misconception of regularities, that her own analysis does itself rely on regularities and that she cannot do without rationality if she wants to explain the conventionality of language.

In a series of publications E.J. Lowe has advocated an attractive alternative to the orthodox view about conditionals embodied in the Stalnaker-Lewis approach. One alleged advantage of Lowe’s approach over its rival is that it offers the prospect of a simpler conditional logic. Another related advantage is that it appears to treat inference by transitivity more plausibly than does the Stalnaker-Lewis approach. One central goal of this paper is to call into question Lowe’s success in providing an account that is better than the Stalnaker-Lewis account in these respects. As part of this, I develop a Loweian-inspired account of sufficient condition sentences such as ‘Harry’s eating this apple is a sufficient condition for his getting sick’, which is another central goal of the paper.