In this paper, I draw attention to the often-overlooked Tractarian distinction between representing and depicting, provide a clear account of it and examine how it affects our understanding of the notions of ‘being a picture’, meaningfulness, truth, and falsity in the Tractatus. I also look at the recent debate in the literature on the notion of truth and show that Glock’s claim that the official theory of the Tractatus is to be accounted in terms of obtainment only and deflationary accounts (...) such as Hacker’s derive from a failure to notice the distinction between representing and depicting or a misconception of depicting. Finally, I argue against the idea that either representing or depicting should be dispensed with. Both are necessary for Wittgenstein to account for every case of a proposition being a picture of reality. (shrink)

Dans cet article, je soutiens que Wittgenstein n’a pas de position de principe comparable à l’adhésion de Russell à un sens robuste de la réalité ou à l’absence chez Meinong de préjugé en faveur de la réalité, mais qu’il est plutôt pragmatique sur la question de son engagement ontologique : il y a ce qu’il y a et c’est le langage sensé qui, en tant que miroir de la réalité, nous indique ce qu’il y a. Ceci dit, ce pragmatisme s’accommode (...) d’entités possibles et d’entités non concrètes dans la mesure où sa théorie de l’image l’engage à admettre des situations possibles et des faits négatifs. Contrairement à ce que soutiennent les partisans d’une lecture russellienne du Tractatus, il ne s’agit pas là d’une simple façon de parler, mais d’une thèse que Wittgenstein endosse et qui ne lui paraît nullement problématique.In this paper, I hold that Wittgenstein’s position on the issue of ontological commitment isn’t based on some fundamental principle such as Russell’s robust sense of reality or Meinong’s rejection of the prejudice in favour of reality, but is rather pragmatic : there is whatever there is and it is the meaningful language, qua miror of reality, which shows us what there is. This pragmatism goes together with a commitment to possible and non concrete entities, since his picture theory commits him to the existence of possible situations and negative facts. Contrarily to what friends of the Russellian lecture of the Tractatus believe, this commitment isn’t a mere façon de parler but is assumed by Wittgenstein and isn’t problematic. (shrink)