Band 7, Heft 1

In this paper,¹ I briefly take stock of Wittgenstein’s contribution to philosophy and some other disciplines. Surveying some of the ways in which he emphasizes the primacy of action, together with the superfluity - in basic cases - of propositions and cognition, in his account of mind, language and action, I suggest that, far from being a maverick philosopher, Wittgenstein’s pioneering ’enactivism’ puts him in the mainstream of philosophy today. I mention the importance of his thought for the philosophy of mind and epistemology, as also for psychology and the cognitive sciences, and conclude that Wittgenstein’s philosophy is still spearheading the fight against physicalism and reductionism.

The article describes the way Wittgenstein tried to collect „all his good remarks“ within one book. The first such attempt is the Tractatus, the second attempt - which Wittgenstein could not complete - are the Investigations.The ‚Big Typescript’, however,was intended only as an instrument towards this latter aim. This aspect of Wittgenstein’s way of doing philosophy remained stable and it can help to throw light on various exegetical questions.

The late Wittgenstein is reported as saying that he owes his ‘anthropological approach’ to Piero Sraffa. In February 1932, however, Wittgenstein reproaches the Italian economist with misunderstandings similar to those he had criticized in the work of the Scottish anthropologist James Frazer six months before. According to a well-known anecdote, a gesture of Sraffa’s had a momentous influence onWittgenstein’s philosophical development.The ‘grammar of gestures’ elaborated by him in the early 1930s is an attempt to answer questions such as those raised by his friend’s Neapolitan gesture. There is a substantial difference between what the late Wittgenstein calls his ‘ethnological way of looking’ and the stance he had adopted in his early criticism of Frazer’s Golden Bough in June/July 1931. In February 1932,Wittgenstein replied to Sraffa’s objections with arguments similar to those he had already raised against Frazer’s very different method. Sraffa pushed Wittgenstein to adopt natural history and to transform his philosophy into an empirical approach. However, in the early 1930s Wittgenstein refused to do either. In order to learn how to look at philosophical problems with an ‘anthropological’ eye from Sraffa, he will need to learn, against Sraffa, not to reduce philosophy to anthropology (natural history). Years later,Wittgenstein still insists on the contrast he had marked between himself and Sraffa: Using imaginary scenarios he intends to show how a superficial analogy can mislead us to mistaking institutions, having an entirelydifferent nature, for economic systems - resulting in them seeming ‘irrational’, ‘unlogical’.

The concepts ‚Übersicht‘ (survey), ‚Übersichtlichkeit‘ (surveyability) and ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung‘ (surveyable representation) play a central role in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. As Peter Hacker already noticed in 1972, an adequate English translation of these terms has “given Wittgenstein’s translators much trouble. They have chosen to translate it non-systematically in conformity with the demands of English style, thereby partially obscuring the significance and pervasiveness of the concept in Wittgenstein’s work, e. g. ‘command a clear view’ (Übersehen PI, § 122); ‘perspicious representation’ (Übersichtliche Darstellung PI, § 122); ‘synoptic account’ (Übersichtliche Darstellung Z, § 273); ‘Survey’ (Übersicht Z, § 273); ‘synoptic view’ (Übersichtlichkeit Z, § 464); ‘perspicuity’ (Übersichtlichkeit RFM, p. 45);² ‘capable of being taken in’ (Übersehbar RFM, p. 81) 3 .” (Hacker 1972: 113 f. fn. 3) Since then other translations have been added to Hacker’s list, i.e. ‘surview’ for ‘Übersicht’ (Hacker’s own choice) and ‘overview’ for ‘übersehen’ (cf. PI 2009: 122). In his discussion of the notion ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung’ Alois Pichler suggests that “synopsis” and “synoptic view” might be the best translations for what Wittgenstein had in mind using the terms ‚Übersicht’ and ‚Übersichtliche Darstellung’ (cf. Pichler 2004: 181). Recently the problem of how to adequately translate the German words in question into English is also discussed by Mathieu Marion (cf. Marion 2011: 138 f. fn. 4). In what follows I shall argue - like Marion, but probably for different reasons - that the terms ‘survey’ (Übersicht), ‘surveyability’ (Übersichtlichkeit) and ‘surveyable representation’ (übersichtliche Darstellung) most adequately represent what Wittgenstein had in mind. As might become clear only this consistency in wording allows to grasp the connections in meaning Wittgenstein implicitly hints at, wherever he uses the terms ‘Übersicht’ and ‘Übersichtlichkeit’ in different parts of his ‘Nachlass’ and different periods of his philosophical development.

It will be argued that Wittgenstein did not outright reject the law of excluded middle for mathematics or the proof-techniques that constructivists reject in connection with the law of excluded middle. Wittgenstein can be seen to be critical of the dogmatic claims of Brouwer and Weyl concerning how proofs should be constructed. Rather than himself laying down a requirement concerning what is and is not a proof, Wittgenstein can be read as exploring the differences between constructive and non-constructive proofs. I will read Wittgenstein as arguing that Brouwer’s rejection of excluded middle is based upon an over-extension from examples that Wittgenstein reads as special cases. Wittgenstein is certainly interested in the difference between constructive and non-constructive proof but only for the purposes of exploring the easily-missed differences between the two, not in order to reject non-constructive approaches.

In this paper,¹ I examine Wittgenstein’s conception of reason and rationality through the lens of his conception of reasons. Central in this context, I argue, is the image of the chain, which informs not only his methodology in the form of the chain-method, but also his conception of reasons as linking up immediately, like the links of a chain. I first provide a general sketch of what reasons are on Wittgenstein’s view, arguing that giving reasons consists in making thought and action intelligible by delineating reasoning routes; that something is a reason not in virtue of some intrinsic property, but in virtue of its role; and that citing something as a reason characterises it in terms of the rational relations it stands in according to context-dependent norms. I then argue that on Wittgenstein’s view,we misconceive chains of reasons if we think of them on the model of chains of causes. Chains of reasons are necessarily finite, because they are anchored in and held in place by our reason-giving practices, and it is in virtue of their finitude that chains of reasons can guide, justify and explain. I argue that this liberates us from the expectation that one should be able to give reasons for everything, but that it limits the reach of reasons by tying them to particular reasoning-practices that they cannot themselves justify. I end by comparing and reconciling Wittgenstein’s dichotomy between chains of reasons and chains of causes with seemingly competing construals of the dichotomy, and I clarify its relation to the dichotomy between explanation and justification.

The relation of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy to skepticism seems to be ambiguous, since he rejects radical skepticism but also highlights the groundlessness of our beliefs. In this paper, I am going to discuss Wittgenstein’s hinge propositions in this respect. Against the usual view, I will show that they do not function as a contextualist or foundationalist refutation of skepticism. What is more, they also do not confirm skepticism. In contrast, I will argue that following Wittgenstein skepticism is neither false nor true, but still has a point, which can be elucidated with Stanley Cavell’s concept of a truth of skepticism. This concept roughly states that we can not know about the existence of the world and the others, but that we have to acknowledge them. With the help of Wittgenstein, I am going to clarify this position. The key idea is that the problem of skepticism can be understood as a metaphorical way of presenting the finiteness of the human condition and that vertiginous skeptical irritations lead to an adequate human self-understanding in this respect.

Die ersten Bemerkungen Wittgensteins zur Identität stammen vom Herbst 1913; Spuren zeitweise intensiver Beschäftigung mit dem Thema finden sich indes bis in die Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Die vorliegende Arbeit versucht jenen Gedankenläufen Wittgensteins zu folgen, die in seine eigentümliche Schreibweise gebundener Variablen und der Streichung des Identitätszeichens aus der Begriffsschrift mündeten. Neben der Typentheorie Russells hat,was im ersten Abschnitt gezeigt wird, besonders seine Analyse definiter Beschreibungen Wittgensteins frühe Gedanken zur Identität angeregt, zumal er sich nach der Ablehnung von Russells Definition der Identität der neuerlichen Frage gegenübersah, ob sich Sätze, worin das Zeichen der Identität vorkommt, weiter zerlegen lassen oder ob dieses vielmehr als Urzeichen angenommen werden müsse. Diese Frage stand für Wittgenstein in engem Zusammenhang mit dem,was er als das Grundproblem der Logik ausgemacht zu haben glaubte, d. i. mit der Frage nach der Beschaffenheit eines idealen Zeichensystems, das jede Tautologie auf ein und dieselbe Weise als Tautologie erkennen ließe. Wie in einer ausführlichen Besprechung der ab-Notation im dritten Abschnitt nachgewiesen wird, war die Lösung des Grundproblems denn auch das Ziel seines fieberhaften, letztlich aber erfolglosen Versuchs, die ab-Notation auf allgemeine Sätze - und insbesondere auf solche, worin das Identitätszeichen vorkommt - auszuweiten. Der vierte Abschnitt schließlich folgt Wittgensteins neuerlichem Anlauf zur Lösung des Grundproblems, der ausgeht von einer früheren Betrachtung zu dem bereits im zweiten Abschnitt behandelten Phänomen der Rekurrenz und deren Affinität zur Frage nach der richtigen Handhabung der Identität. Am Ende erweist sich die durch eine veränderte Variablenschreibweise ohne Verlust an Ausdruckskraft ermöglichte Streichung des Identitätszeichens gleichsam als Begleitprodukt der umfassenderen Bemühung, das Grundproblem der Logik doch noch einer Lösung zuzuführen.

The notion of “attitude” is central to the reception of Wittgenstein in moral philosophy, in at least two different contexts: firstly, in connection with early Wittgenstein it has become standard to speak of ethics as an “attitude towards the world as a whole”; and secondly, and in connection with the later Wittgenstein, the notion of the “attitude towards a soul” - in contrast with the alleged opinion that someone has a soul - has been used to elucidate a sense of the moral significance of others, particularly in the writings of Peter Winch and Cora Diamond. Interestingly, within contemporary metaethics, the position that our moral judgments are expressions of attitude is labelled “moral expressivism”. In this paper I focus on Simon Blackburn’s version of moral expressivism. I argue that Blackburn’s position is motivated by the same concerns Wittgenstein expressed in his Lecture on Ethics. However, while Blackburn’s notion of “attitude” is ultimately an emotivist notion, denoting a binary affective response to the facts, the notion of “attitude” used in Wittgensteinian contexts is much subtler; while it often involves an emotional response, an attitude is primarily a way of conceiving the facts and in the context of his later work it is more firmly grounded in practices. I suggest finally that if we modify moral expressivism by adopting the Wittgensteinian notion of attitude, we are able to more capably answer some of the objections to standard moral expressivism and generate a more sophisticated and plausible view.

In this note I address two issues in Susan Edwards-McKie’s recent paper “The Cosmic Fragment: Härte des Logischen Zwangs und Unendliche Möglichkeit. Nachlass discoveries and Wittgenstein’s conception of generality and the infinite”. The first has to do with a “von Wright error” that Edwards- McKie found and that I show to have been ultimately corrected by von Wright. The second has to do with her interpretation of Wittgenstein’s reaction to Heraclitus’ idea that “everything flows”, one I interpret as purely grammatical and not as a substantial position in favour or against Heracliteanism, nor even as a third stance between this and Parmenideanism, as Edwards-McKie interestingly suggests.

This article consists of extracts from a young Oxford philosopher’s diaries recounting his visit to Cambridge in his first postgraduate years and some subsequent revivals of contact. These extracts shed fascinating light on the social and academic situation in Cambridge shortly after Wittgenstein’s return there in the Lent Term 1929 and permit readers to see him from a fresh perspective. An introduction helps to view these extracts in their proper context.