ABSTRACTIn 1931 Wittgenstein wrote: ‘the limit of language manifests itself in the impossibility of describing the fact that corresponds to a sentence without simply repeating the sentence’. Here, Wittgenstein claims, ‘we are involved … with the Kantian solution of the problem of philosophy’. This paper shows how this remark fits with Wittgenstein's early account of the substance of the world, his account of logic, and ultimately his view of philosophy. By contrast to the currently influential resolute reading of the Tractatus, (...) the paper argues that the early Wittgenstein did not aim at destroying the idea of a limit of language, but that the notion lies at the very heart of Wittgenstein's early view. In doing so, the paper employs and defends the Kantian interpretation of Wittgenstein's early philosophy. (shrink)

El Tractatus de Wittgenstein es una obra desconcertante para quien la ha leído. Una vez recorridas sus complejas tesis filosóficas, sus últimos pasajes declaran que sus proposiciones se esclarecen cuando son reconocidas como sinsentidos. El libro debe ser leída como una escalera para ser arrojada una vez que hemos subido por ella. Al respecto, hay por lo menos dos posturas al respecto en la literatura: mientras la tesis de inefabilidad sostiene que el propósito del Tractatus es comunicar algún tipo de (...) verdad inexpresable a través del reconocimiento de su sinsentido, de acuerdo con la tesis terapéutica su propósito es exclusivamente identificar el sinsentido de la obra para determinar lo que resulta expresable. En este artículo defiendo una tercera opción según la cual la metáfora de la escalera ―compuesta de tres peldaños sobre la naturaleza del mundo, el lenguaje, y el sujeto― se debe entender desde su significado paradójico. El Tractatus no es una obra que intente comunicar un conocimiento teórico y, sin embargo, arrojar la obra al sinsentido lleva al lector al descubrimiento práctico de una posición ética para ‘ver correctamente el mundo’ a partir de la paradoja de un límite. Palabras clave : Sinsentido; Límite; Sujeto; Lenguaje; Escalera.: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus is a baffling work for someone who has read it. Once we have gone throughout its complex philosophical thesis, its last two passages claim that its propositions are cleared up by being recognized as senseless. The book must be read as ladder to be thrown away once we have climbed it up. In this respect, there are at least two accounts in the literature: while the ineffability view contends that the purpose of the Tractatus is to communicate some kind of inexpressible truths throughout the recognition of its senselessness, according to the therapeutic view its purpose is exclusively to identify the senseless of the work to determine what really is sayable. This article argues a third view in which the metaphor of the ladder ―having three rungs about the nature of the world, language, and the Self― must be understood from its paradoxical meaning. The Tractatus is not a work trying to communicate a theoretical knowledge and, therefore, throwing it away to the senseless takes the reader to the practical discovery of an ethical position to ‘see the world rightly’ from the paradox of a limit. Key Words : Senseless; Limit; Subject; Language; Ladder. (shrink)

This paper explores difficulties that resolute readers of the early Wittgenstein face, arising out of what I call the ‘sheer lack’ interpretation of their ‘austere’ conception of nonsense, and the intelligibility of philosophical confusion—there being a sense in which we rightly talk of a ‘grasp’ of philosophical nonsense and indeed of its ‘logic’. Such readers depict philosophical and ‘plain’ nonsense as distinct psychological kinds; but I argue that the ‘intelligibility’ of philosophical confusion remains invisible to the kind of psychology that (...) the ‘sheer lack’ interpretation would make available to Wittgenstein. These concerns relate to well-established worries concerning whether the Tractatus’s ‘ladder’ can be climbed by thinking through arguments—or indeed by thinking full stop—if it is austerely nonsensical. Though I argue that these worries can be met, doing so requires another interpretation of ‘austerity’, which I call the ‘equivocation’ interpretation, and reveals the difference between resolute and non-resolute readings to be less clear cut than has been thought. Key here is the failure of some hard-and-fast distinctions that inform the literature—distinctions shaped by intuitions about mind, meaning, inference, logic, and nonsense—to serve us well. (shrink)

This thesis focuses on 'New' or 'Resolute' readings of Wittgenstein's work, early and later, as presented in the work of, for instance, Cora Diamond and James Conant. One of the principal claims of such readings is that, throughout his life, Wittgenstein held an 'austere' view of nonsense. That view has both a trivial and a non-trivial aspect. The trivial aspect is that any string of signs could, by appropriate assignment, be given a meaning, and hence that, if such a string (...) is nonsense, that will be because we have failed to make just such an assignment. The non-trivial aspect is this: that there is no further, non-trivial story to be told, and so nonsense is only ever a matter of our failure to give signs a meaning. Hence, too, logically speaking, all nonsense is on a par. That view, both of nonsense and of Wittgenstein, has attracted a great deal of controversy. It is particularly controversial in relation to Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus', where Wittgenstein famously declares, in the penultimate remark, that the reader is to recognise Wittgenstein's own elucidatory propositions there as nonsensical, and must eventually throw them away in coming to understand Wittgenstein himself. I defend the austere view and its attribution to Wittgenstein, early and later (but focussing primarily on the earlier), against a number of exegetical and substantial criticisms put forward by, for instance, Peter Hacker, Hans-Johann Glock and Adrian Moore. (shrink)

Abstract: This paper explores the relevance of themes from Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to the ongoing discussion of metaphysical nihilism. I set out by showing how metaphysical nihilism is of paramount importance for cosmological arguments. Metaphysical nihilism is the position that there might have been nothing. Two conflicting intuitions emerge from a survey of discussions of metaphysical nihilism: Firstly, that metaphysical nihilism is true, and secondly, that formulations of the position are somehow unclear or nonsensical. By considering formalizations of philosophical language, (...) the second intuition is sharpened, while the first intuition is given expression through the Tractarian distinction between what is said and what is shown by our symbolism. I conclude by exploring and rejecting objections to making metaphysical nihilism a scientific, rather than a philosophical question. (shrink)