Wittgenstein’s approach to philosophy is closely related not only to the content but also to the form of his investigations. The following paper presents the uniqueness of Wittgenstein’s writing style, namely his use of questions, by comparing part of his work with Austin’s essay. For this purpose a typology of questions with regard to their function in the text is established and applied. The difference between Wittgenstein’s and Austin’s writing style is then documented by the frequency of certain types of questions, and omission of others, and related to some of Wittgenstein’s remarks about his approach to philosophical inquiry. The difference is then summarized tentatively as one between ''pedagogical'' and ''academic'' writing style, which poses questions concerning the translation of Wittgenstein’s investigations into academic prose., Wittgensteinův přístup k filozofii úzce souvisí nejen s obsahem, ale také s formou jeho vyšetřování. Následující článek prezentuje jedinečnost Wittgensteinova stylu psaní, konkrétně jeho použití otázek, porovnáním části jeho práce s Austinovým esejem. Pro tento účel je zavedena a aplikována typologie otázek s ohledem na jejich funkci v textu. Rozdíl mezi Wittgensteinovým a Austinovým stylem psaní je pak dokumentován četností určitých typů otázek a opomenutím druhých a je spojen s některými Wittgensteinovými poznámkami o jeho přístupu k filosofickému zkoumání. Rozdíl je pak předběžně shrnut jako ,,pedagogický'' a ,,akademický'' styl psaní, který představuje otázky týkající se překladu Wittgensteinových výzkumů do akademické prózy., and Blahoslav Fajmon
Cílem tohoto článku je rekonstruovat Wittgensteinův příspěvek na poli estetiky. Ohnisko zájmu spočívá v teorii smyslového vnímání. Tuto teorii lze charakterizovat jako program "minimálně viděného"; bude analyzována fenomenologickou metodou. V souvislosti se zorným prostorem zkoumám tři problémy: rozostřenost, neurčitost a smyslový dojem. Rozdíl mezi zorným prostorem a euklidovským prostorem může být vymezen srovnáním jejich typických struktur. Budu analyzovat vztah mezi vnímáním lidských bytostí na jedné straně a jejich zorným prostorem na straně druhé. Zorný prostor lze srovnat se dvoudimenzionálním obrazem. Dále je třeba vyjasnit roli barev v programu "minimálně viděného".
The aim of the article is to develop the dialectics and potential of a specific philosophical approach to the problem of epistemological scepticism: Wittgenstein’s ideas about the function of fundamental certainties in our epistemic practices. I begin with an excursion into the problematic of sceptical arguments and explain G. E. Moore’s anti-sceptical strategy, which influenced Wittgenstein’s thoughts in On Certainty. I then offer a reconstruction of the Wittgensteinian approach that I favour. On this basis I argue that although there is a grain of truth in scepticism, the idea of an indefinitely-iterated doubt and request for reasons (driving the Pyrrhonian-style of scepticism), as well as the idea of a hyperbolic doubt (driving Cartesian-style scepticism), are philosophical illusions from the perspective of the rules and standards of our epistemic operating - the would-be sceptic offers us no compelling alternative., Ladislav Koreň., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
The paper deals with the conception of languange Early Ludwig Wittgenstein presented in work Tractatus logico-philosophicus. It discusses also a very important relation between natural language and ideal one - for this purpose, the category ,,Zeichen'' and the relation between ,,Zeichen'' and ,,Symbol'' is analyzed., Příspěvek pojednává o pojetí jazyků Early Ludwig Wittgenstein v práci Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Zabývá se také velmi důležitým vztahem mezi přirozeným jazykem a ideálním - pro tento účel je analyzována kategorie ,,Zeichen'' a vztah ,,Zeichen'' a ,,Symbol''., and Antonín Dolák
Ever since Strawson’s The Bounds of Sense, the transcendental apperception device has become a theoretical reference point to shed light on the criterionless self-ascription form of mental states, reformulating a contemporary theoretical place tackled for the first time in explicit terms by Wittgenstein’s Blue Book. By investigating thoroughly some elements of the critical system the issue of the identification of the transcendental subject with reference to the I think will be singled out. In this respect, the debate presents at least two diametrically opposed attitudes: the first – exemplified in the works by Hacker, Becker, Sturma and McDowell – considers the features of the I think according to Wittgenstein’s approach to the I as subject while the second, exemplified by Kitcher and Carl, criticizes the various commentators who turn to Wittgenstein in order to interpret Kant’s I think. The hypothesis that I will attempt at articulating in this paper starts off not only from the transcendental apperception form, but also from the characterizations of empirical apperception. It may be assumed that Kant’s reflection on the problem of self-identification lies right here, truly prefiguring some features of Wittgenstein’s uses of I, albeit from different metaphysical assumptions and philosophical horizons., Od té doby, co se Strawson's The Bounds of Sense , transcendentální apercepční zařízení stalo teoretickým referenčním bodem, který vrhl světlo na nekritickou sampodepsanou formu mentálních stavů, přeformuloval současné teoretické místo, které bylo poprvé výslovně řečeno Wittgensteinovou Modrou knihou . Při důkladném zkoumání některých prvků kritického systému bude vybrána otázka identifikace transcendentálního subjektu s odkazem na to, co si myslím. V tomto ohledu debata představuje alespoň dva diametrálně odlišné postoje: první - ilustrovaný v dílech Hacker, Becker, Sturma a McDowell - uvažuje o vlastnostech myslím podle Wittgensteinova přístupu k I jako předmětu.zatímco druhý, ilustrovaný Kitcherem a Carlem, kritizuje různé komentátory, kteří se obrátí na Wittgensteina, aby si mohli interpretovat Kantův názor . Hypotéza, kterou se v tomto článku pokusím artikulovat, vychází nejen z transcendentální apercepční formy, ale iz charakterů empirické apercepce. Lze předpokládat, že Kantova úvaha o problému sebeidentifikace spočívá právě zde, skutečně předurčující některé rysy Wittgensteinova použití I , byť z různých metafyzických předpokladů a filosofických horizontů., and Luca Forgione
Wittgenstein’s metaphor of the beetle in the box in the Philosophical Investigations has been the object of a robust critique by Petr Koťátko. In the book Interpretace a subjektivita (Interpretation and Subjectivity) he resolutely opposes the view that mental experiences do not figure in our vocabularies of the mental, which he associates with the metaphor in question. The aim of this article is to show that the critique in question is founded on a misunderstanding of the real sense of the metaphor. Its motivation is quite different. In addition, the aim is to show that, in reality, there is agreement between Koťátko’s critical thoughts and the motivation of Wittgenstein’s metaphor of the beetle in the box.
This article engages critically with the theory of expression proposed by Mitchell S. Green in his Self-Expression (2007). In this book, Green argues that expressions are signals designed to convey information about mental states. By putting pressure on one of the examples Green uses in his book, I will challenge this thesis. I will then deepen this challenge by developing a contrast between two philosophical perspectives on expression, which I name the 'instrumental' and the 'descriptive'. I take Green’s theory of expression to be an exemplar of the instrumental perspective. Expression, in the instrumental perspective, is a means for transmitting information about mental states from organism to organism. The descriptive perspective I articulate with the help of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Ludwig Wittgenstein. On the descriptive view, expression is (at least a part of) an answer to the question what it is so much as to have mental states and a living body. I suggest at the end of the article that if we remain within the instrumental perspective, we will not be able to use expression to satisfactorily answer this question.
The main views on the nature of narrative in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy are analyzed. It is shown how, realizing the research narrative, he paid attention to the linguistic means of expression of our thoughts, reference to the actual reality, the logical component of argumentation. It is shown that in order to place worldview ac-cents more clearly and strengthen the expressive effect of thought, Wittgenstein pragmatized the narrative, in particular, used metaphors, images of learning, took into account the historico-cultural context. It is important for him to show that the form of the narrative influences what meanings the interlocutor will comprehend. Through a system of micro- and macro-narratives, Wittgenstein intended to express his opinion as clearly as possible, although he made the reader an active participant in the narrative. The thinker did not deviate from the analytico-scientific standards of philosophizing, although he showed that the relevant analysis of the narrative is significantly complicated by the ambiguities of its interpretation, the uniqueness of human experience and the identity of each narrator’s value system. It is argued that a pragmatic approach to narrative analysis significantly expands the research methodology of the analytic thinker and, accordingly, makes it possible to deepen our understanding of reality and human existence, as well as more clearly define the specifics of their knowledge.
This article strives to provide an original conceptual frame- work that should open a way to clarification of general philosophical debates on rules and norms . It makes a clear distinction between rules (and norms) understood as social facts grounded on specific relation- ships between social subjects and rules (norms) understood as linguistic entities. Norms are taken as specific social rules and divided into three different types: social constitutive norms, particular constitutive norms, and institutional norms . Attention is also devoted to relation between normality and normativity, to the role of permissions and to specific features of technological ‘rules’ . In the last part of the article the outlined conceptual apparatus is employed for analysis of two passages from Wittgenstein’s Investigations., Tento článek se snaží poskytnout originální koncepční rámec, který by měl otevřít cestu k objasnění obecných filosofických debat o pravidlech a normách. Jasně rozlišuje mezi pravidly (a normami) chápanými jako společenská fakta založená na konkrétních vztazích mezi sociálními subjekty a pravidly (normami) chápanými jako lingvistické entity. Normy jsou považovány za specifická sociální pravidla a jsou rozdělena do tří různých typů: společenské konstitutivní normy, konkrétní konstitutivní normy a institucionální normy. Pozornost je také věnována vztahu mezi normálností a normativitou, úloze oprávnění a specifickým rysům technologických „pravidel“. V poslední části článku je nastíněna koncepční aparatura pro analýzu dvou pasáží z Wittgensteinových zkoumání., and Vladimír Svoboda
In this article I attempt to reply to the question of whether, in the framework of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, reasons and arguments are given which might plausibly motivate the claim - made by Wittgenstein himself - that atomic propositions and their correlates (states of affairs) are mutually independent. My first step is to make clear that an answer to this question demands a detailed interpretation of Tractarian objects and, specifically, whether they are only particulars, or properties and relations too. After sketching the evidential support for both interpretations, I incline to a reading that takes properties and relations to be objects. In the context of the narrower and broader conceptions of objects, I then give a detailed analysis of the metaphor “the space of states of affairs” and “logical space”, which I consider to be the principal guide in our understanding the reasons for the independence of states of affairs and thus, more generally, of atomic propositions too., Zuzana Daňková., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii