O propósito deste trabalho é examinar a recolocação e a transformação da questão da harmonia entre linguagem, pensamento e realidade na segunda fase da produção filosófica de Wittgenstein. A fim de cumprir esse propósito, discutem-se, no primeiro capítulo, a formulação dessa questão na fase inicial de sua reflexão, que culmina no Tractatus logico-philosophicus, e sua vinculação com as concepções de filosofia e método apresentadas nesse livro. Em seguida, discutem-se as modificações de tais concepções a partir do início da década de 1930 e a necessidade de reformulação da questão examinada. No segundo e terceiro capítulos, comentam-se as duas principais facetas que ela assume na segunda fase da produção de Wittgenstein: 1. o exame de alguns trechos dos manuscritos do chamado período intermediário e das seções 428-465 das Investigações filosóficas revelam sua vinculação com a noção de intencionalidade e noções correlatas; 2. o exame dos textos dedicados à noção de seguir regras, sobretudo as seções 185-242 das Investigações, permite reconsiderar as relações entre as regras e a prática de sua aplicação. Esse percurso visa mostrar, por um lado, que, mesmo depois do abandono do projeto do Tractatus, Wittgenstein ainda considera filosoficamente legítima a questão da harmonia entre linguagem, pensamento e realidade, desde que posta em outros termos; e, por outro lado, que as relações entre nossas formas de representação e a realidade são mais complexas do que pensara. / The aim of this work is to examine the replacement and transformation of the question of the harmony between language, thought and reality in the second phase of Wittgensteins philosophical production. In order to fulfill this aim we discuss in the first chapter the formulation of the question in the initial phase of his reflections, which culminates in the Tractatus logico-philosophicus, and its connection with the conceptions of philosophy and method presented in the book. Then, we discuss the modifications in these conceptions since the beginning of the 1930s and the necessity of reformulating the question we approach. In the second and third chapters we comment on the two main sides of the question in the second phase of Wittgensteins production: 1. the examination of some passages of the manuscripts of the so-called middle period and of the §§428-465 of the Philosophical Investigations reveal its connection with the notion of intentionality and correlated notions; 2. the examination of the texts dedicated to the notion of following a rule, mainly the §§185-242 of the Philosophical Investigations, allows to reconsider the relations between the rules and the application practices. This path is intended to show, on the one hand, that even after the abandonment of the Tractarian project, Wittgenstein still considers the question of the harmony between language, thought and reality as a legitimate philosophical question, provided that it is put in other terms; and, on the other hand, that the relations between our forms of representation and reality are more complex than he once thought.

As Investigações Filosóficas são apresentadas por Wittgenstein como uma crítica e contraposição à imagem agostiniana da linguagem. O que não costuma ser evidenciado pela leitura do texto é que essa imagem é o grande interlocutor de Wittgenstein nas Investigações e que garante a unidade de seu trabalho. Fala-se de imagem por se tratar de uma concepção geral sobre a linguagem, não de uma teoria, que se apresenta como matriz das mais diversas abordagens sobre o tema. Pretende-se apresentar esse conceito de imagem e a contraposição de Wittgenstein à imagem agostiniana, bem como delinear a imagem alternativa que contrapõe a ela. Nesse percurso parece configurar-se, em particular em meio ao debate sobre jogos de linguagem e regras, que Wittgenstein recusaria a concepção de que se possa sustentar a existência de uma necessidade lógica. A leitura dos textos finais de Wittgenstein, em particular de Da certeza, onde se formula de maneira mais ampla os conceitos de jogos de linguagem, lógica e formas de vida, bem como as relações entre eles, revela-se esclarecedora desse debate. Nesse novo conjunto de textos, que não têm mais como contraponto a imagem agostiniana da linguagem ou o Tractatus, mas sim o idealismo ou ceticismo aos quais os textos de Moore (que dão início a essas reflexões) também se opunham, encontramos uma exposição longa e articulada dos conceitos de jogos de linguagem, e lógica, que complementam as posições anteriormente expostas nas Investigações. Esse percurso possibilita uma perspectiva reveladora da maneira como se constrói a reflexão wittgensteiniana sobre a linguagem e a alternativa, em certo sentido kantiana, que oferece à contraposição entre realismo e convencionalismo, não se comprometendo com nenhum deles (ao contrário do que dizem muitos de seus comentadores) e estabelecendo um terreno extremamente fértil, que estabelece novos contextos para os conceitos de prática e ação, em meio ao qual parte da filosofia contemporânea se estabelece. / Wittgenstein presents the Philosophical Investigations as a critic and contraposition to the augustinian image of language. Instead of it, the readings of the text do not use to put in evidence that this image is Wittgensteins principal interlocutor in the text and that it is what gives its unit. The reference to an image is an indication that the Wittgensteins concern is with a general conception about language, presented as the matrix of different treatments of the subject, and not with a particular theory. We discuss here this concept of image and Wittgensteins contraposition to the augustinian image, and also the main lines of the alternative image presented in contraposition to this one. In this way, particularly in the consideration of the debate about language games and rules, it becomes clear that Wittgenstein refuses the conception that there is logical necessity. The reading of Wittgensteins last writings, particularly of On Certainty, where the concepts of language game, logic and forms of life, as well as their relationships, are presented in a more extended way, puts this debate under a new light. This set of writings, which do not have as a counterpoint nor the augustinian image of language nor the Tractatus, but the idealism or skepticism to which Moores writings (which gives the opportunity to these reflexions of Wittgenstein) oppose themselves, presents a long and articulated exposition of the concepts of language games and logic which are a complement to the positions previously presented in the Philosophical Investigations. This way makes possible a new perspective which show how the wittgensteinian reflexion about language is structured and which is his alternative, which may be called in a certain sense kantian, offered against the contraposition between realism and conventionalism, do not engaging with any of them (differently of what is said by various readers). This work delimitates an extremely fertile soil, with new contexts to the concepts of practice and action, where part of the contemporary philosophy is landed.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation addresses the question: How did later Wittgenstein aim to achieve his goal of putting forward a way of dissolving philosophical problems which centered on asking ourselves what we mean by our words – yet which did not entail any claims about the essence of language and meaning? This question is discussed with reference to “resolute” readings of Wittgenstein. I discuss the readings of James Conant, Oskari Kuusela, and Martin Gustafsson. I follow Oskari Kuusela’s claim that in order to fully appreciate how later Wittgenstein meant to achieve his goal, we need to clearly see how he aimed to do away with hierarchies in philosophy: Not only is the dissolution of philosophical problems via the method of clarifying the grammar of expressions to be taken as independent from any theses about what meaning must be – but furthermore, it is to be taken as independent from the dissolution of any particular problem via this method. As Kuusela stresses, this also holds for the problems involving rule-following and meaning: the clarification of the grammar of “rule” and “meaning” has no foundational status – it is nothing on which the method of clarifying the grammar of expressions as such were meant to in any way rely on. The lead question of this dissertation then is: What does it mean to come to see that the method of dissolving philosophical problems by asking “How is this word actually used?” does not in any way rely on the results of our having investigated the grammar of the particular concepts “rule” and “meaning”? What is the relation of such results – results such as “To follow a rule, [...], to obey an order, [...] are customs (uses, institutions)” or “The meaning of a word is its use in the language” – to this method? From this vantage point, I concern myself with two aspects of the readings of Gustafsson and Kuusela. In Gustafsson, I concern myself with his idea that the dissolution of philosophical problems in general “relies on” the very agreement which – during the dissolution of the rule-following problem – comes out as a presupposition for our talk of “meaning” in terms of rules. In Kuusela, I concern myself with his idea that Wittgenstein, in adopting a way of philosophical clarification which investigates the actual use of expressions, is following the model of “meaning as use” – which model he had previously introduced in order to perspicuously present an aspect of the actual use of the word “meaning”. This dissertation aims to show how these two aspects of Gustafsson’s and Kuusela’s readings still fail to live up to the vision of Wittgenstein as a philosopher who aimed to do away with any hierarchies in philosophy. I base this conclusion on a detailed analysis of which of the occasions where Wittgenstein invokes the notions of “use” and “application” (as also “agreement”) have to do with the dissolution of a specific problem only, and which have to do with the dissolution of philosophical problems in general. I discuss Wittgenstein’s remarks on rule-following, showing how in the dissolution of the rule-following paradox, notions such as “use”, “application”, and “practice” figure on two distinct logical levels. I then discuss an example of what happens when this distinction is not duly heeded: Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker’s idea that the rule-following remarks have a special significance for his project of dissolving philosophical problems as such. I furnish an argument to the effect that their idea that the clarification of the rules of grammar of the particular expression “following a rule” could answer a question about rules of grammar in general rests on a conflation of the two logical levels on which “use” occurs in the rule-following remarks, and that it leads into a regress. I then show that Gustafsson’s view – despite its decisive advance over Baker and Hacker – contains a version of that same idea, and that it likewise leads into a regress. Finally, I show that Kuusela’s idea of a special significance of the model “meaning as use” for the whole of the method of stating rules for the use of words is open to a regress argument of a similar kind as that he himself advances against Baker and Hacker. I conclude that in order to avoid such a regress, we need to reject the idea that the grammatical remark “The meaning of a word is its use in the language” – because of the occurrence of “use” in it – stood in any special relation to the method of dissolving philosophical problems by describing the use of words. Rather, we need to take this method as independent from this outcome of the investigation of the use of the particular word “meaning”. / Die Ausgangsfrage dieser Dissertation ist: Wie gedachte der späte Wittgenstein sein Ziel zu erreichen, eine Art und Weise der Auflösung philosophischer Probleme zu vorzulegen, die daran ansetzt, was wir mit unseren Worten meinen, jedoch keine Thesen über Sprache und Bedeutung mit sich zieht? Ich behandele diese Frage mit Bezug auf sogenannte „strenge“ Lesarten Wittgensteins. Ich befasse mich mit den Interpretationen von James Conant, Oskari Kuusela und Martin Gustafsson. Ich nehme Kuuselas Gedanken auf, daß zu einem vollen Verständnis davon, wie Wittgenstein sein philosophisches Ziel zu erreichen gedachte, gehört, die Abwesenheit von Hierarchien in seiner Spätphilosophie zu sehen: nicht nur sollte die Auflösung philosophischer Probleme mithilfe der Methode der Klärung der Grammatik von Ausdrücken von jeden Thesen darüber, wie sprachliche Bedeutung zustande kommt, unabhängig sein – sondern darüberhinaus auch unabhängig von der Auflösung bestimmter Einzelprobleme mittels dieser Methode. Dies, so Kuusela, gelte auch für die Probleme um Regelfolgen und um Bedeutung: „Regel“, „meinen“, und „Bedeutung“ seien keine Grundbegriffe, auf deren Klärung die Methode der Klärung der Grammatik von Ausdrücken in irgendeiner Weise aufbaue. Die Leitfrage dieser Dissertation ist: Was genau heißt es zu verstehen, daß die Auflösung philosophischer Probleme mittels der Frage „Wie wird dieses Wort tatsächlich gebraucht?“ nicht auf Ergebnissen der Untersuchung der Grammatik der Begriffe „Regel“ und „Bedeutung“ aufbaut? In welcher Beziehung stehen diese Ergebnisse – Ergebnisse wie „Einer Regel folgen, [...], einen Befehl geben, [...] sind Gepflogenheiten (Gebräuche, Institutionen)“ und „Die Bedeutung eines Wortes ist sein Gebrauch in der Sprache“ – dann zu dieser Methode? Unter diesem Blickwinkel befasse ich mich mit zwei Aspekten der Lesarten von Gustafsson und Kuusela. Bei Gustafsson befasse ich mit der Auffassung, die Auflösung philosophischer Probleme an sich „beruhe auf“ genau der Art von Übereinstimmung, die sich – im Zuge der Auflösung des Regelfolgen-Problems – als eine Voraussetzung für unsere Rede von „meinen“ und „bedeuten“ herausstellt. Bei Kuusela befasse ich mich mit der Idee, daß Wittgenstein, indem er zur Auflösung philosophischer Probleme die Frage nach dem tatsächlichen Gebrauch von Wörtern einführt, dem Modell „Bedeutung als Gebrauch“ folgt – welches er vorher eingeführt hatte, um einen Aspekt des tatsächlichen Gebrauchs des Wortes „Bedeutung“ übersichtlich darzustellen. Ich versuche zu zeigen, warum diese beiden Aspekte der Lesarten von Gustafsson und Kuusela noch zurückfallen hinter die Vision von Wittgenstein als einem Philosophen, dem es darum geht, Hierarchien zu vermeiden. Zur Begründung lege ich eine detaillierte Analyse der Art und Weise des Auftretens der Begriffe „Gebrauch“, „Verwendung“ und „Anwendung“ (sowie „Übereinstimmung“) in Wittgensteins Spätphilosophie vor. Wie ich zeige, läßt sich das Auftreten dieser Begriffe unterteilen in Fälle, wo es im Zusammenhang steht mit der Auflösung bestimmter Einzelprobleme, und Fälle, in denen es im Zusammenhang steht mit Auflösung philosophischer Probleme im Allgemeinen. Als Beispiel behandele ich Wittgensteins Bemerkungen über Regelfolgen. Ich zeige, wie in der Auflösung des Regelparadoxes Begriffe wie „Gebrauch“, „Verwendung“, „Anwendung“ auf zwei unterschiedlichen logischen Ebenen auftreten. Dann behandele ich Gordon Bakers und Peter Hackers Auffassung, Wittgensteins Bemerkungen zum Regelfolgen hätten eine besondere Bedeutung für sein Projekt der Auflösung philosophischer Probleme an sich. Ich lege ein Argument dafür vor, daß ihre Idee, die Klärung der Regeln der Grammatik des bestimmten einzelnen Ausdrucks „einer Regel folgen“ könne eine Frage über Regeln der Grammatik im Allgemeinen beantworten, auf einer Vermengung der beiden Ebenen basiert, auf denen der Begriff „Gebrauch“ in den Regelfolgen-Bemerkungen vorkommt, und daher in einen Regreß führt. Anschließend zeige ich, daß dies auch für Gustafssons Idee gilt. Schließlich zeige ich, daß Kuuselas Auffassung, das Modell „Bedeutung als Gebrauch“ – gewonnen im Rahmen der Untersuchung der tatsächlichen Verwendung des Wortes „Bedeutung“ – habe eine besondere Relevanz für die Methode der Untersuchung der tatsächlichen Verwendung von Wörtern an sich, ebenfalls in einen Regreß führt. Meine Schlußfolgerung ist, daß die grammatische Bemerkung „Die Bedeutung eines Wortes ist sein Gebrauch in der Sprache“ in keinem besonderen Bezug zu Wittgensteins Methode der Untersuchung des tatsächlichen Gebrauchs von Ausdrücken stehen kann. Stattdessen muß diese Methode als unabhängig von diesem Ergebnis der Untersuchung des Gebrauchs des bestimmten Wortes „Bedeutung“ betrachtet werden.

The rule-following problem can be condensed into the paradox that a rule cannot determine any course of action because every course of action can be made to accord with that rule. In his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke sees this paradox as potentially leading to a radical semantic scepticism that renders meaning itself meaningless, and attributes a sceptical solution of the problem to Wittgenstein. After a critical examination of Kripke's work, I conclude that this solution fails on account of allowing neither for a normativity beyond the subjection of the individual to correction by others in her community, nor for a non-interpretive conception of the understanding. Finally, I propose an alternative solution that incorporates the notion of communal background understanding into that of a form of life and thus preserves the normativity of rule-following and of language.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Committee on the History of Culture, March 2000. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / Esta tese tem como ponto de partida a identificação, resgate e reconstrução de um programa de pesquisas delineado por Karl-Otto Apel perifericamente à fração intermediária de seu pensamento, ao qual se referirá como "fenomenologia positivamente orientada do ser-no-mundo". Oriundo de uma leitura fenomenológica que vincula o projeto do "segundo" L. Wittgenstein à analítica do ser-aí do "primeiro" M. Heidegger, o programa de Apel tem como eixo principal a retomada e aprimoramento do que ele denomina, conforme com o vocabulário de Heidegger, crítica à "ontologia da pré-manualidade" (Vorhandenheitsontologie). Da formulação por Apel da "crítica à ontologia da pré-manualidade", então aprofundada e recomposta como "crítica à pré-manualidade", conduzir-se-á à reivindicação e ao delineamento primário de uma agenda de pesquisas que, no propósito da confrontação de questões pertinentes à fundamentação e à validação científica da sociologia, desdobrar-se-á em três distintos planos de investigação: o problema do fundamento, o problema cientificamente relevante da verdade (empírica) e o problema da sociologia enquanto ciência empírica.

Cette thèse se propose de mettre en évidence l’existence d’une phénoménologie du langage dans le « Work in Progress » de Wittgenstein. Elle tentera de démontrer, par une approche globale de sa réflexion, l'unité de ses travaux bâtie autour d'un projet de fondation d'une science du langage qui serait le ciment et le fil conducteur de toute son œuvre. Grâce à l’hypothèse de travail « The Whole Wittgenstein », forgée pour les besoins de notre étude, cette recherche a permis de proposer une nouvelle interprétation de la pensée du philosophe, dépassant ainsi les exégèses classiques restées trop souvent attachées aux thèmes traditionnels du corpus wittgensteinien. Pour y parvenir, il aura fallu d'abord, asseoir et régler la question d’une phénoménologie wittgensteinienne à partir d'indices phénoménologiques probants, puis mettre en lumière son approche phénoménologique du langage. Cette perspective aura un double intérêt : montrer d'une part comment Wittgenstein récupère, forge puis intègre, au centre de ses préoccupations philosophiques, les concepts de la phénoménologie husserlienne, et comment d'autre part, au cours de ses différents changements de paradigmes linguistiques, il passera du langage phénoménologique â une phénoménologie du langage. En interrogeant dans la continuité la pertinence de la thèse d'une phénoménologie du langage chez l'auteur du Tractatus, un détour par l'histoire de la phénoménologie du langage s'est avéré indispensable pour cerner son sens et en délimiter ses contours. Dès lors, il ne restait plus qu'à la comparer avec cette phénoménologie du langage chez Wittgenstein pour préciser la nature, l'objet de cette étude et la méthode de cette dernière. / This dissertation suggests highlighting the existence of a phenomenology of language in the “Work in Progress” of Ludwig Wittgenstein. It will demonstrate, by a global approach of his reflection, the unit of his works developed around the project of building a science of language which would be the cement and main thread of his whole thought. Thanks to the working hypothesis, called "The Whole Wittgenstein", created for the needs of our study, this research allowed us to submit a new interpretation of the thoughts of the Vienna philosopher, overtaking the classic exegeses often attached to the traditional themes of the wittensteinian corpus. To reach this point, it was first necessary to face and solve the question of a wittgensteinian phenomenology from very convincing phenomenological clues in his works. Then we had to bring to light its phenomenological approach of language. This perspective had a double interest : on one hand, to show how Wittgenstein borrowed, forged, and integrated in the center of its philosophical concerns the husserlian phenomenology concepts, and how on the other hand, during his various changes of linguistic paradigms, he switched from the phenomenological language to a phenomenology of language. By continuing the question the relevance of the thesis of a phenomenology of language in the “Tractatus” author’s philosophy, a detour by “the history” of the phenomenology of the language has become indispensable to encircle its sense and bound its outlines.