Richard Schmitt

This work considers Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-philosophicus as a historical and literary text, showing that it takes the form of a climax, a rhetorical figure in which propositions are set forth as a series. This series takes us from what can be expressed clearly to what cannot be expressed at all, by way of representations whose defects can be remedied by reference to the totality of facts, the composition of the fact, the laws of thought, propositions having sense, the truth-function of elementary propositions, and the general form of the proposition. The truth-function itself has the same order. Here logical analysis covers three requirements of representation, and produces these six steps as intermediates. Such a series is skeptical, "throwing the ladder away," given that Wittgenstein does not present any metaphysics of objects. This evidence supports a 'resolute' reading of the work. ;The basis for the Tractatus is found in the scientific culture of Wittgenstein's youth. The terms derive from Heinrich Hertz and his requirements for scientific representation. The technique is based on quantization and combinatorics introduced into statistical models by Ludwig Boltzmann. The need to gain a prospect over the bounds of logical expression arose because of Bertrand Russell's efforts to over-extend logical analysis at the time Wittgenstein was his student. ;There are also discussions covering: the order of the series defining the general form of the elementary proposition; the intense and conflicted relationship between Wittgenstein and Russell, which led to the notion of defining a boundary to the expression of thoughts; and criticisms of Gottlob Frege relative to the manner of expression in the Tractatus. Issues concerning translation of Wittgenstein into English are also discussed. ;Part 2 of this work contains a new translation of Wittgenstein's German text, the aim of which is to reproduce the form of the original propositions. The appendix has a translation of letters from Frege to Wittgenstein with his criticisms of the Tractatus

The author argues that merleau-Ponty's conception of his task as a philosopher changed between "the structure of behavior" (1942) and "the phenomenology of perception" (1945) and that the latter is accordingly written in a nonscientific style susceptible of misinterpretation. Focusing first on the earlier work, He examines terminological confusions and logical difficulties in merleau-Ponty's critique of realism, And argues that the central concept of form is scientifically useless and philosophically unnecessary. He then discusses merleau-Ponty's later views on language before considering his rejection of objectivism and formulating the significant philosophical issues raised by his work. (staff)

I shall call the sense in which we know about galaxies and about the past "theoretical knowledge" and the corresponding beliefs, "theoretical beliefs." It is widely accepted now that not all knowing is theoretical knowing, but what the distinction between theoretical and non-theoretical knowing consists in is not equally clear. It is not even clear that there are not different kinds of non-theoretical knowing. In this paper I shall clarify the distinction between theoretical knowing and at least one kind of nontheoretical knowing, namely, knowing how to use tools. I shall use "knowing how to hammer" for my example.

This extension of the critique is intimately connected with the problems raised by Structure. Toward the end of that book it appeared that, since materialism is false, nature, considered as a system of physical objects connected causally, in some sense, exists only "for us." But it is immediately obvious that we use "for us" in an unfamiliar sense, when we say that. It is not being claimed that nature exists only for us in the sense in which, for instance, philosophers have said that secondary qualities exist only for us. The problem which Structure raised was precisely what new sense we could possibly give to "for us" and its correlative "in itself" so that we could make sense of the result of that earlier argument. Objectivism, as it is being attacked by Merleau-Ponty says that "for us" and "in itself" are only to be used in the familiar senses in which we say that events and objects exist in nature in themselves, independently of any human awareness and are, as such, described by true statements in science. This is an ontological thesis, for something is being asserted about what it means to exist. The objectivist maintains that the only sense in which anything may be said to exist is that of existing whether anyone is aware of that or not. True statements about existence in nature are said, by the objectivist, to be independent of any statements about the mental states of human beings. This dogma is extended to human beings when they are made the object of scientific study. The mental states of human beings, let alone their physical states, are truly described if the statements about them are true independently of statements about any other mental states of the same subject except those which are either causally or logically connected to the mental states under discussion. Similarly, statements about persons are true or false independently of statements about the observer's mental states. Persons and bodies are regarded as impersonal series of events, as "processus en troisième personne".

To be religious in the sense which Kierkegaard calls ?religiousness A? involves one, according to him, in a paradox. If we take the terms in which he describes this paradox in ordinary senses, it is not clear what this paradox consists of. If we take the terms in a technical sense, the description of being religious involves a paradox. But the paradox is of such a nature that it is now logically impossible that anyone should be religious. If we attach a slightly different meaning to Kierkegaard's terms, being religious is possible but does not involve a paradox. Also on this interpretation, religious conduct becomes indistinguishable from non?religious conduct

Heidegger's writings are by many thought to be irretrievably obscure. This is not true of Sein und Zeit. In order to show this, I explain what Heidegger means by ?ontology?, ?preontological knowledge? and ?preontological mistake?. These explanations show that there is nothing in Heidegger's conception of his enterprise which makes it impossible that Sein und Zeit should be clear. Since the explanations require discussion of specific theses, I also show that Sein und Zeit is, at least in part, clear as actually written

The transcendental phenomenological reduction is described as the transition from thinking to reflection, Which involves a change of attitude. Schmitt elaborates what it means to "bracket the objective world" and to suspend judgement. The traditional distinction between thinking and reflection, Based on the distinction between what is inside and what is outside the mind, Is shown to be inadequate. Reflection really involves critical detachment, A neutral attitude and disinterestedness; it must describe the new facts rather than explain them. Hence, The reduction is the transition from a nonreflective to a reflective attitude. (staff)

Recent writers on economics have conceded that capitalism suffers from serious shortcomings. But they argue that, in spite of that, preference should be given to capitalism over alternative systems, because it alone gives free rein to the universal, human desire for private gain and is therefore best adapted to human nature. I argue against this psychological defense of capitalism that the desire for private gain is not a universal trait of human beings. On the contrary, it is a defining trait of capitalist society that in it persons are first and foremost motivated by that desire. My argument rests on reflections about the way in which we identify motives. We identify motives not by introspection but by reference to lists of actions that persons, who act from a given motive, may be expected to perform in suitable circumstances. To function in a capitalist society I must perform the sorts of actions by reference to which we identify the desire for private gain as a active

Jon Elster believes that methodological individualism is self-evident (Elster 1986, 66). Not finding it so, and being suspicious of philosophers who claim that their views are so obvious as to demand no arguments in their favor, I went back to retrace the outlines of the methodological individualism debate. It turns out that the participants to the debate disagree widely as to what they are arguing about; it is not obvious to them what methodological individualism is. The defenders of methodological individualism agree with their critics much more than those critics acknowledge. Each side ascribes views to the other which its proponents disown explicitly.

Calls for a rapprochement between analytic philosophy and phenomenology have lately been issued in England and America. It is not altogether clear what such calls intend. No one, I suspect asks for an attempt to restate, say, Austin’s views on language in Heideggerian jargon. More likely the unspoken hope is that, on the contrary, someone would enable analytic philosophers to understand what Husserl and Heidegger and some of the other phenomenologists have to say. This requires nothing less than a translation of these thinkers’ statements not only into a different natural language but into a different philosophical vocabulary. Translating German philosophical works into English is difficult. Translating Husserl’s or Heidegger’s views into a vocabulary acceptable to analytic philosophers is considerably more laborious. However arduous the task, translations from the vocabulary of Husserl or Heidegger into analytic jargon are possible. The present paper shows that they are, by discussing Heidegger’s distinction between ’vorhanden sein’ and ’zuhanden sein’ in reasonably plain English.