The metalingual function of language is to talk what we talk and think what we think.The contribution of Wittgenstein's early research on language is to clear the boundary that there is something beyond words.This...The metalingual function of language is to talk what we talk and think what we think.The contribution of Wittgenstein's early research on language is to clear the boundary that there is something beyond words.This topic of this paper is to exploit the meaning of why"the unspeakable"is unspeakable.It could be divided into 3 parts.The first part is introduction about the goal of this research.The second part is analyses about the three unspeakable situations in the early thoughts of Wittgenstein.The third part is three points of enlightenments about the unspeakable situation.展开更多
Recently we proposed the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation (or, quantum language), which has a great power to describe both classical and quantum systems. Thus we think that quantum language can be viewed as the la...Recently we proposed the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation (or, quantum language), which has a great power to describe both classical and quantum systems. Thus we think that quantum language can be viewed as the language of science. Therefore, it makes sense to study, from the quantum linguistic point of view, Wittgenstein’s picture theory, since he must have wanted to create a language of science. In this paper, we show that the proposition that Wittgenstein studied in his book “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” can be regarded as a binary projective measurement in classical quantum language. And thus, we conclude that Wittgenstein’s language (<em>i.e.</em>, the language that he supposed in his book) is realized by classical quantum language. Hence, now we can fully understand Wittgenstein’s picture theory since the reason his book is incomprehensible is that he did not define his language.展开更多
In this paper,the transformative and critical potential of the groundlessness of praxis--a central issue in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty--is outlined.It argues that the groundlessness of human praxis entails neither a...In this paper,the transformative and critical potential of the groundlessness of praxis--a central issue in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty--is outlined.It argues that the groundlessness of human praxis entails neither a relativistic nor a foundationalistic epistemological position.On the contrary,following Stanley Cavell and a“resolute reading”of Wittgenstein’s philosophy,it claims that Wittgenstein’s aim is to let us acknowledge that both epistemological foundationalism and epistemic relativism are apparent needs,so as to invite us to change our practical way of acting.From this perspective,this paper suggests that Wittgenstein’s account of philosophy addresses the readers and involves a transformation of their own practical attitude and way of acting.展开更多
Although Wittgenstein and Chuang Tzu lived in utterly different backgrounds of times,geography and culture,they both paid close attention to the relationship between language and the world.What's more,they pointed...Although Wittgenstein and Chuang Tzu lived in utterly different backgrounds of times,geography and culture,they both paid close attention to the relationship between language and the world.What's more,they pointed out that there were indeed many things out of the reach of language,namely,the "unspeakable".The essence of Wittgenstein's early philosophy advocates that one has to remain silent for the unspeakable whereas the"Taoism"of Chuang Tzu,on the premise of the recognition of remaining silent,puts forward the highest state of expressing the"unspeakable"- that is,whether to make a statement or not.Despite the fact that there is a slight difference in textual representation and solutions,there is no doubt that they both focus their philosophical research on the"unspeakable".展开更多
This article is in six main sections. In the first three sections, some indication of how and why philosophers have differed in their response to the title question is given by describing Wittgenstein＇s encounters wi...This article is in six main sections. In the first three sections, some indication of how and why philosophers have differed in their response to the title question is given by describing Wittgenstein＇s encounters with Carnap, and by examining Wittgenstein＇s commitment to clarity and argument in philosophy, illustrating this commitment by reference to his Philosophical Investigations discussion of the will. In the remaining three sections, Russell is taken as a paradigm example of a central kind of analytic philosopher. The answer to the title question is unfolded by sketching Wittgenstein＇s and Russell＇s treatments of a few philosophical topics and problems, focusing on theories and questions surrounding propositions, judgments, and their constituents, in particular Russell＇s multiple relation theory of judgment and the question of the unity of the proposition. This approach displays, and does not merely assert, Russell＇s deployment of （sometimes repeated variants of） technical solutions to philosophical problems and how that deployment contrasts with Wittgenstein＇s attempts to make such problems disappear.展开更多
In“Wittgenstein and Qualia,”Ned Block presents an inversion argument for qualia.Taking Wittgenstein’s notes as the starting point,Block argues that if we admit the possibility of the“innocuous”inverted spectrum,w...In“Wittgenstein and Qualia,”Ned Block presents an inversion argument for qualia.Taking Wittgenstein’s notes as the starting point,Block argues that if we admit the possibility of the“innocuous”inverted spectrum,we will have to accept the“dangerous”inverted spectrum,where qualia are ineffable contents of experience contents that cannot be fully captured by public language.In my opinion,Block’s argument merits suspicion as it begs the question.While claiming to oppose the inner arena model like Wittgenstein,he presupposes its validity in his argument.I will finally examine how Wittgenstein dissolves confusion about qualia by the way of grammatical analysis.展开更多
文摘The metalingual function of language is to talk what we talk and think what we think.The contribution of Wittgenstein's early research on language is to clear the boundary that there is something beyond words.This topic of this paper is to exploit the meaning of why"the unspeakable"is unspeakable.It could be divided into 3 parts.The first part is introduction about the goal of this research.The second part is analyses about the three unspeakable situations in the early thoughts of Wittgenstein.The third part is three points of enlightenments about the unspeakable situation.
文摘Recently we proposed the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation (or, quantum language), which has a great power to describe both classical and quantum systems. Thus we think that quantum language can be viewed as the language of science. Therefore, it makes sense to study, from the quantum linguistic point of view, Wittgenstein’s picture theory, since he must have wanted to create a language of science. In this paper, we show that the proposition that Wittgenstein studied in his book “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” can be regarded as a binary projective measurement in classical quantum language. And thus, we conclude that Wittgenstein’s language (<em>i.e.</em>, the language that he supposed in his book) is realized by classical quantum language. Hence, now we can fully understand Wittgenstein’s picture theory since the reason his book is incomprehensible is that he did not define his language.
文摘In this paper,the transformative and critical potential of the groundlessness of praxis--a central issue in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty--is outlined.It argues that the groundlessness of human praxis entails neither a relativistic nor a foundationalistic epistemological position.On the contrary,following Stanley Cavell and a“resolute reading”of Wittgenstein’s philosophy,it claims that Wittgenstein’s aim is to let us acknowledge that both epistemological foundationalism and epistemic relativism are apparent needs,so as to invite us to change our practical way of acting.From this perspective,this paper suggests that Wittgenstein’s account of philosophy addresses the readers and involves a transformation of their own practical attitude and way of acting.
基金The Planning Project of Humanities & Social Sciences of the Education Department of Henan Province with the title of On the Integration of Traditional Translation Techniques & IT in Contemporary Translation so as to Cultivate Application-oriented Translators in the E-eraThe Study on the Cultivation of Interpreters in the Research Topic of Henan Federation of Social Science called the Development of the Economic Zone of the Central Plains (SKL20121751)
文摘Although Wittgenstein and Chuang Tzu lived in utterly different backgrounds of times,geography and culture,they both paid close attention to the relationship between language and the world.What's more,they pointed out that there were indeed many things out of the reach of language,namely,the "unspeakable".The essence of Wittgenstein's early philosophy advocates that one has to remain silent for the unspeakable whereas the"Taoism"of Chuang Tzu,on the premise of the recognition of remaining silent,puts forward the highest state of expressing the"unspeakable"- that is,whether to make a statement or not.Despite the fact that there is a slight difference in textual representation and solutions,there is no doubt that they both focus their philosophical research on the"unspeakable".
文摘This article is in six main sections. In the first three sections, some indication of how and why philosophers have differed in their response to the title question is given by describing Wittgenstein＇s encounters with Carnap, and by examining Wittgenstein＇s commitment to clarity and argument in philosophy, illustrating this commitment by reference to his Philosophical Investigations discussion of the will. In the remaining three sections, Russell is taken as a paradigm example of a central kind of analytic philosopher. The answer to the title question is unfolded by sketching Wittgenstein＇s and Russell＇s treatments of a few philosophical topics and problems, focusing on theories and questions surrounding propositions, judgments, and their constituents, in particular Russell＇s multiple relation theory of judgment and the question of the unity of the proposition. This approach displays, and does not merely assert, Russell＇s deployment of （sometimes repeated variants of） technical solutions to philosophical problems and how that deployment contrasts with Wittgenstein＇s attempts to make such problems disappear.
文摘In“Wittgenstein and Qualia,”Ned Block presents an inversion argument for qualia.Taking Wittgenstein’s notes as the starting point,Block argues that if we admit the possibility of the“innocuous”inverted spectrum,we will have to accept the“dangerous”inverted spectrum,where qualia are ineffable contents of experience contents that cannot be fully captured by public language.In my opinion,Block’s argument merits suspicion as it begs the question.While claiming to oppose the inner arena model like Wittgenstein,he presupposes its validity in his argument.I will finally examine how Wittgenstein dissolves confusion about qualia by the way of grammatical analysis.
