Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T20:31:49.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Incoherence in the Tractatus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Carl Ginet
Carl Ginet*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After he had rejected much of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein, upon at least one occasion, still “thought that in the Tractatus he had provided a perfected account of a view that is the only alternative to the viewpoint of his later work”—a perfected account: that is to say (at least) a well-knit, coherent one. It seems to me that this merit must be denied the whole account presented in the Tractatus and I would like to explain why.

The Tractatus holds that every true or false proposition is analyzable as a truth-functional compound of elementary propositions. It further holds that elementary propositions are completely independent of one another. “The simplest kind of proposition, an elementary proposition, asserts the existence of a state of affairs” (4.21).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 1973 , pp. 143 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Malcolm, Noman Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir (London, 1958), p. 69.Google Scholar

2 Quotations from the Tractatus are from the Pears-McGuinness translation (London, 1961).

3 In “Some Remarks on Logical Form,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. IX (1929), and in Philosophische Bemerkungen (Oxford, 1964) written in 1929-30.

4 Wittgenstein, Notebooks 1914-1916, transl. by Anscombe, G. E. M. (Oxford, 1961), p. 7Google Scholar(2). According to von Wright, “Biographical Sketch,” Philosophical Review, 1955, pp. 532–533; reprinted in Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir (New York, 1958)Google Scholar, it was this sort of example that suggested the picture theory to Wittgenstein.

5 Cf. Notebooks, p. 19: “sign and method of symbolizing together must be logically identical with what is signified”; and p. 21: “what represents is not merely the sign or picture but also the method of representation.”

6 Cf. Black’s, Max comment in A Companion to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (Ithaca, New York, 1964) p. 111Google Scholar: “The sense on which a general proposition is a ‘logical picture’ can hardly be exactly the same as the sense in which an elementary proposition is one.”

7 In 5.101 molecular propositional forms are listed in order of increasing determinacy. The proportion of F’s in the final column of the truth-table representation of a molecular proposition containing two or more elementary propositions is a measure of its determinacy. This is because to put an F beside a possible combination of truth-values for the elementary propositions is to deny that that pattern of existence and non-existence for the atomic possibilities does obtain; whereas to put a T besides a combination of truth values is not to affirm that pattern does obtain but is merely not to deny it.

8 Malcolm, “Wittgenstein’s Philosophische Bemerkungen,” Philosophical Review, 1967, p. 111.

9 I am grateful to Norman Malcolm for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.