In a recent article on Wittgenstein1, Elizabeth Anscombe addressed a problem concerning the picture theory in the. Tractatus. The problem is that of the. G. E. M. Anscombe. St. Augustine’s Press Disagreements: Anscombe, Geach, Wittgenstein. Thoughts and Their Subject: A Study of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. The Disenchantment of Nonsense: Understanding Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Book Review:An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus G. E. M. Anscombe.
|Published (Last):||27 October 2013|
|PDF File Size:||15.76 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus
But here we can note that the questions tractarus by Anscombe are important for Bradley, and indeed his discussion of them is famous; further, his account of judgment stresses questions about how judgment is related to reality, questions again of exactly the sort which Anscombe is suggesting we need to be struck by if we want to understand the Tractatus.
Now put together the Fregean point and the Wittgenstein twist. It looks as if it is meant to be a formal concept word, but it also appears not to have the use, in that context, of a formal concept word. There are all sorts of trwctatus with the picture Anscombe gives us, of idealists and empiricists on one side, with their preconceptions and their familiar sorts of question, and Frege on the other side, giving a new direction to philosophy, and asking questions much more like those of ancient philosophy than like those that had concerned earlier thinkers.
But Wittgenstein gives the sign—symbol distinction a particular twist, by applying it to the question what it is for us to be using a word for a logical kind.
Overall, Anscombe’s work is a solid commentary. As Anscombe notes, Wittgenstein was concerned with this problem throughout his life. So long as we use the language in which the problems present themselves, we will get nowhere; the questions are not the sorts of questions we take them for. Hence the importance of her treatment of negation.
Reading Wittgenstein with Anscombe, Going On to Ethics
If Wittgenstein indeed implies that we should not characterize the use which has been laid out as that of propositionssome alternative story has to be told of what the value can be of such an activity.
But how can such claims be understood? But the generality involved in the transformation of our understanding of an ordinary picture is different. But I am not using the term in exactly the way she does.
They have an important kind of use, but it is not the use of saying how things are. Augustine’s Press first published In any case, the supposed parallel between Tractatus propositions and grammatical remarks would hardly resolve the difficulty, since questions parallel p.
She herself is presenting a use of language, the picture-proposition p. These passages are hardly unambiguous, but more important, they were written well before Wittgenstein began to take the anscombbe principle seriously.
But xnscombe mere sign has no logical connection to any particular kind of object. Its Development between the Two World Wars. Paperbackpages.
Unless I make a claim about what sort of symbol it is, the use of which I am laying out, how is what I have done relevant to any philosophical p.
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. The two possibilities for the things represented are thus internal to this way of using signs. The transformation which Anscombe hoped to bring about in how the book was read helped to transform also the study of both Frege and Russell. No keywords specified fix it. It involves the use of operations to construct a new proposition.
Although Anscombe accepts such a view, it is I think under far greater pressure within the overall context of her interpretation than it is in the writings of Hacker, Pears, and Malcolm. When we come to see something as having a property of which we had been unaware, we can grasp that other things can also have the property; the grasp of such generality is part of what is involved in recognition of a property.
An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus by G.E.M. Anscombe
In his study of the history of philosophical analysis, J. Before trying a different approach, I shall restate the problem. But what then is the connection? Matt Hale rated it really liked it Apr 18, Without some historic context perhaps even with it the Tractatus can seem pedantic. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1.
The Metaphysics of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.