A presente dissertação tem dois objetivos. Em primeiro lugar, pretendemos armar um debate entre Russell e Wittgenstein tendo como questão mestra a relação entre lógica e linguagem. Em especial, procuramos encontrar elementos em The Philosophy of Logical Atomism e no Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus para reconstruir a resposta que consta em cada uma das obras para as questões: qual o estatuto lógico da linguagem corrente? Qual a função do lógico enquanto tal? Em segundo lugar, pretendemos apresentar um jogo de cartas – o jogo da Figuração – que desenvolvemos ao longo da pesquisa e funciona como uma ilustração do Tractatus. Em função do jogo será possível compreender algumas das principais teses da obra. Em especial, o papel da teoria da figuração e a distinção entre dizer e mostrar como pilares da explicação tractariana para a questão sobre o funcionamento lógico da linguagem. Além disso, com base na semelhança entre o nosso jogo da figuração e a explicação de Wittgenstein para o funcionamento lógico da linguagem, apresentaremos uma série de razões que justificam o fracasso do projeto de Wittgenstein. Por fim, defenderemos a tese segundo a qual o nosso pensamento funciona com base em uma série de padrões lógicos distintos e não apenas um único padrão lógico (tal qual defendido no Tractatus). / The present dissertation has two goals. In the first place, we intend to construct a debate between Russell and Wittgenstein having the relation between logic and language as our master question. In particular, we seek to find elements in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism and the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to reconstruct the answer in each of the works for the questions: what is the logical status of the current language? What is the role of the logician as such? Secondly, we intend to present a card game – the Picture game- that we developed throughout the research and functions as an illustration of the Tractatus. Based on the game we will be able to understand some of the main theses of the work. In particular, the role of picture theory and the distinction between saying and showing as pillars of the tractarian explanation for the question about the logical functioning of language. Moreover, on the basis of the similarity between our picture game and Wittgenstein's explanation for the logical functioning of language, we will present a number of reasons for the failure of Wittgenstein's project. Finally, we will defend the thesis that our thinking operates on the basis of a series of distinct logical patterns and not just a single logical pattern (as defended in the Tractatus).

FundaÃÃo de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Cearà / CoordenaÃÃo de AperfeiÃoamento de Pessoal de NÃvel Superior / Este presente estudo examina a mudanÃa paradigmÃtica da filosofia de Wittgenstein. Tal mudanÃa ocorre quando o filÃsofo percebe que sua concepÃÃo atomista contÃm erros irrecusÃveis. O ponto de dissoluÃÃo dessa concepÃÃo foi a mudanÃa quanto à concepÃÃo de proposiÃÃo elementar/estado de coisas, a saber, quando Wittgenstein percebe que nÃo à mais possÃvel concebÃ-los atomicamente. O artigo Algumas ObservaÃÃes sobre a Forma LÃgica apresenta esse momento de ruptura, levando o filÃsofo a repensar sua concepÃÃo filosÃfica. Em um primeiro momento o filÃsofo vienense apoia-se em uma concepÃÃo de linguagem fenomenolÃgica, chegando a negÃ-la pouco tempo depois. Por fim, o estudo aponta para uma ruptura com essa concepÃÃo fenomenolÃgica, quando Wittgenstein entÃo parecerà defender uma concepÃÃo de linguagem como a da fÃsica, i. e., hipotÃtica. / The present study examines the paradigmatic change of Wittgensteinâs philosophy. Such a change takes place when the philosopher realizes that his atomistic approach has unsolving problems. The dissolution point of that conception concerns the change regarding the notion of elementary proposition/state of things, that is to say, when Wittgenstein realizes that it is no more reasonable conceiving them as logical atoms. His paper Some remarks on logical forms presents this breaking point and leads him to reevaluate his philosophical conception. Firstly, he is based on a phenomenological conception of language, but afterwords he negates it. Then, this study focuses on that break regarding his phenomenological conception, when Wittgenstein comes to defend a hypothetical conception of language, such as the Physics.

Dans ce travail de doctorat, nous avons pour objectif de reconstituer les présupposés et les conséquences de la thèse ockhamiste selon laquelle la quantité n’est pas réellement distincte de la substance ou de la qualité. Cette thèse est formulée dans les écrits philosophiques et théologiques de Guillaume d’Ockham, logicien et théologien anglais du début du XIVe siècle (1285-1349). La thèse est organisée en trois parties. La première partie a pour objet la question de savoir comment s’organise la catégorie de quantité si l’on admet que la quantité n’est pas réellement distincte de la substance ou de la qualité. La deuxième partie, consacrée à la physique de la quantité, traite de chacune des trois espèces de quantité, la quantité permanente continue (l’extension spatiale), la quantité successive (le mouvement et le temps) et la quantité discrète (le nombre). Enfin, la troisième partie consiste en une description et une évaluation de la théorie ockhamiste de la structure métaphysique de la substance / The aim of this PhD dissertation is to reconstruct the assumptions and consequences of the ockhamist thesis according to which quantity is not really distinct from substance or from quality. This thesis can be found in the philosophical and theological writings of William of Ockham, a logician and Franciscan theologian from the beginning of the 14th century (1285-1349).The dissertation is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the question how the category of quantity is organised if one assumes that quantity is not really distinct from substance or from quality. The second part is dedicated to the physics of quantity. Each species of quantity is examined, that is permanent continuous quantity (spatial extension), successive quantity (motion and time) and discrete quantity (number). Lastly, the third part consists in a description and an evaluation of the ockhamist theory of the metaphysical structure of substance

My thesis tackles two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: • What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept C₁ the same concept as a concept C₂? • What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? I will develop a pluralist and contextualist theory of concept individuation and possession: different concepts have different individuation and possession conditions, and contextual factors play a crucial role in determining what concepts we attribute to other subjects when we ascribe propositional attitudes to them. In chapters 1-3, I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I suggest contextualist theories of ascriptions can be applied to the problem of concept individuation/possession. In particular, I use contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's “publicity principle”, according to which concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. Publicity has important implications: in particular, it is inconsistent with existing versions of holism, on which concepts cannot be shared by ordinary thinkers. Nonetheless, in chapters 4-5 I show how holism can still play an important role in our best theory of concepts. More specifically, I argue that the tradition of appealing to modes of presentation in order to give an account of “Frege cases” is in fact committed to holism. To develop a version of holism that will give a successful account of Frege cases without violating publicity, I suggest we should adopt my pluralist-contextualist picture: on that picture, the concepts involved in a Frege case will be holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts will be more coarsely individuated and widely shared. In chapter 6, I will develop this view further by contrasting it with other pluralist theories (Weiskopf) and with rival theories of concepts, such as the localist views defended by Peacocke, Rey and Jackson.