维特根斯坦规范性的兼容解读方案

The Compatible Interpretation on Wittgenstein’s Normativity of Meaning

在维特根斯坦规范性问题的研究中,意义规范的合法性问题始终存在争议,这涉及如何理解其“意义即用法”的思想。目前学界存在两种主流解读方案,规范解读和自然解读。前者强调意义是内在规范的,无需额外为规范寻找一个合法性来源;后者强调意义不是内在规范的,可找到相应的自然事实,从外部保证规范的客观有效。霍里奇认为“意义即用法”存在多种不同且兼容的解读方式,然而他的工作是建立在对维特根斯坦追随者的批评上,并未给出系统的论述。文章在霍里奇工作的基础上,先是重构霍里奇方案,给出兼容两种解读的规范性解释。其次是对该方案进行分析,结合富特、卡维尔的自然解读来完善霍里奇方案,认为霍里奇方案本质上属自然解读。最后说明兼容方案可能存在的问题,比较自然解读和规范解读优劣,给出理解规范性的合理区间。

In the study of Wittgenstein’s normativity,the legitimacy of the normativity of meaning has remained contentious,centering on the interpretation of his concept of“meaning as use”.Two predominant viewpoints pre⁃vail within the scholarly community:the normative interpretation and the naturalistic interpretation.The former em⁃phasizes that meaning is intrinsically normative,requiring no external source for normative legitimacy,the latter emphasizes that meaning is not inherently normative and there exists a natural fact to ensure the objectivity of the norm from the outside.Horwich argues that“meaning as use”has multiple different and compatible interpretations,but his work is based on a criticism of Wittgenstein’s followers and does not provide a systematic exposition.Draw⁃ing from Horwich’s groundwork,this paper first reconstructs the compatible interpretation to provide a normative explanation that is compatible with both interpretations.Secondly,an analysis of Horwich’s framework reveals that it is essentially a natural interpretation,and combines it with Foot’s and Cavell’s natural interpretations to improve the Horwich’s scheme,explaining what natural facts the semantic normativity is based on.Finally,the paper ad⁃dresses potential issues with the compatible interpretation,comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the natu⁃ralistic and normative interpretations,and endeavors to provide a reasonable range for understanding normativity.