Wittgenstein, Peirce, and Paradoxes of Mathematical Proof

Analytic Philosophy 62 (3):252-274 (2021)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Wittgenstein's paradoxical theses that unproved propositions are meaningless, proofs form new concepts and rules, and contradictions are of limited concern, led to a variety of interpretations, most of them centered on rule-following skepticism. We argue, with the help of C. S. Peirce's distinction between corollarial and theorematic proofs, that his intuitions are better explained by resistance to what we call conceptual omniscience, treating meaning as fixed content specified in advance. We interpret the distinction in the context of modern epistemic logic and semantic information theory, and show how removing conceptual omniscience helps resolve Wittgenstein's paradoxes and explain the puzzle of deduction, its ability to generate new knowledge and meaning.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2020-02-17
Latest version: 2 (2020-02-17)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
81 ( #49,122 of 64,084 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #32,285 of 64,084 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.