RESUMEN En este artículo trato de establecer que, según el Tractatus, la posibilidad de pensar que el espacio lógico fuera vacío es equivalente a la posibilidad de pensar que el mundo no hubiera existido. Tal representación viene dada por la última línea de una tabla de verdad que es una descripción completa del espacio lógico: es la línea en la que todas las proposiciones elementales son falsas. En primer lugar, argumentaré que una proposición elemental sería falsa -más que no tener (...) un valor de verdad- si fuera evaluada con respecto a un mundo posible en el que alguno de los objetos nombrados en esa proposición no existe. A continuación, tendré que mostrar que es posible que los objetos tractarianos no hubieran existido para poder concluir que es posible pensar que los objetos tractarianos no hubieran existido. Por último, estoy obligado a ofrecer una nueva interpretación del pasaje sobre la substancia.ABSTRACT In this paper I intend to establish that, according to the Tractatus, the possibility of thinking that the logical space were empty is equivalent to the possibility of thinking that the world had not existed. Such a representation is given by the bottom line of a truth-table which is a complete description of logical space: it is the line where all elementary propositions are false. Firstly, I will argue that an elementary proposition would be false -rather than lacking a truth-value- if it were evaluated with respect to a possible world in which some named object in that proposition does not exist. Then I will have to show that it is possible that the tractarian objects had not existed in order to conclude that it is possible to think that the tractarian objects had not existed. Finally, I am bound to offer a new interpretation of the substance passage. (shrink)

Proposition 5.122 of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus has been the source of much puzzlement among interpreters, so much so that no fully satisfactory account is yet available. This is unfortunate, if only because the containment account of logical consequence has a venerable tradition behind it. Pasquale Frascolla’s interpretation of proposition 5.122 is based on a valid argument and one true premise. However, the argument explains sense containment only in an indirect way, leaving some crucial questions unanswered. Besides, Frascolla does not address the (...) issue of how to make sense containment notationally perspicuous, an essential theme in Wittgenstein’s reflections. In this paper, we elaborate on Frascolla’s account by looking at the issue through the Tractarian notion of logical space. Our analysis shows that, for containment to be fully appreciated, one should adopt a negative perspective on the notion of sense, in line with the exclusionary theory of conceptual content, as labelled by Ian Rumfitt. Besides this, we introduce and discuss two methods—one envisaged by Wittgenstein himself—for making sense containment notationally perspicuous. (shrink)

We discuss a previously unnoticed resemblance between the theory of relations and predicates in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism [TPLA] by Russell and the theory of objects and names in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [TLP] by Wittgenstein. Points of likeness are detected on three levels: ontology, syntax, and semantics. This analogy explains the prima facie similarities between the informal presentation of the theory of types in TPLA and the sections of the TLP devoted to this same topic. Eventually, we draw some (...) consequences concerning both sides of the analogy: for what concerns Russell, the contextual pertinence of this surprising fragment of Tractarian metaphysics and semantics is questioned on several grounds; about Wittgenstein, the interpreters who do not identify Tractarian objects with particulars are in a better position to make sense of the analogy here discovered. (shrink)