Richard Michael McDonough

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:WITTGENSTEIN: AN EXCHANGE In his review 1 of my The Argument of the 'Tractatus ': its Relevance to Contemporary Theories of Logic, Language, Mind and Phil,osophical Truth,2 John Churchill claims that my " eccentric " (C 171) 3 interpretation " does not persuade " (C 171). My interpretation is eccentric for, as Churchill himself stresses, there is a "fundamental point at which McDonough differs from virtually every other reader of the Tractatus '', namely that " one can construct explicit logical argumentation, constituting a philosophical system, leading from [Wittgenstein's] 'fundamental idea' to certain explicit, systematic conclusions about ontology, mind, meaning, and so on" (C 171). In oppo· sition to my program Churchill writes, "By attributing to Wittgen· stein an argument or doctrine (in the sense just mentioned) he con· tradicts those commentators who have understood Wittgenstein to be earnestly requiring real silence about philosophy and to be asserting seriously that the Tractatus is a self-refuting treatise, to be kicked aside, once its lessons are learned" (C 166). My mistake, it seems, is to "make [LW's] system consistent" since, if we "take [LW] at genstein's "self-refuting treatise", that I sought an escape from this his word " it is " deep[ly] inconsistent " (C 171). Churchill regards himself as expressing the standard interpretation of " the plain sense of what [LW] wrote " (C 171). However, Black reports that Wittgenstein felt that the Tractatus "was misunderstood by Russell, Moore, Frege.. • and even Ramsey " 4 and so is even led to say that" there can he no question here of any definitive reading." 5 More recently, Pears has even said that the ideas in Wittgenstein's 1 Churchill, John, The Thomist 52, no. 1 (January, 1988). 2 McDonough, Richard M., The Argument of the ' Tractatus ': its Relevance to Contemporary Theories of Logic, Language, Mind, and Philosophical Tr1ith (State University of New York Press, 1986). The Thomist incorrectly stated the title of my book, substituting " Trust" for " Truth " in the subtitle. ain the text of my reply I have used the notation (Cai) and (My), respectively, to designate p. ai and p. y in Churchill's review and my book. 4 Black, Max, A Companion to Wittgensttin's 'Traotatus' (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1974), p. 1. s Ibid., p. vii. 819 320 RICHARD MCDONOUGH books do not even appear to "repeat the familiar patterns of Western thought ".6 Similar comments abound in most of the serious commentators. It is against this background, rather more pessimistic than Churchil's cheery vision of the universally acknowledged "plain sense" of Witt· genstein's "self-refuting treatise", that I sought an escape from this interpretative deadlock. If a definitive interpretation is to be established, then instead of indulging in the common practice of selectively removing remarks from the Tractatus to suit one's own fancies, one must found the interpretation on the remarks which Wittgenstein himself identified as its "fundamental ideas". Accordingly, the interpre· tative burden of my project falls on the plausibility of attributing this argument to the text. Churchill only mentions this 200+ page argument in the one dismissive sentence quoted above. But is it legitimate to dismiss the argument on such grounds? Let us assume that the Tractatus enjoins "real" silence "once its lessons are learned." The question is, when are its lessons learned? Churchill makes his own interpretative claims, and then insists (conveniently ) that one must he thereafter he silent. But perhaps its lessons are learned in digesting the argument of the Tractatus. The point is that one must still decide the correctness of the interpretation independently. Any interpreter can invoke the injunction to silence with equal justice, namely none, to enforce his own view. My interpretation is as consistent with such an injunction to silence as any other. Similar remarks apply to Churchill's dismissal of my interpretation on the grounds that it attributes a " doctrine " to Wittgenstein. Just as Churchill chooses not to view his own interpretative pronouncements as violations of the silence doctrine, while mine are violations, he also chooses not to view his own ascriptions to the Tractatus as doctrines, while, again, mine are. This kind of verhalism has infected far too much of the commentary on Tractatus. If it is...

The charge of hypocrisy has been made in connection with several recent events—namely, the pair of "sex scandals" involving, respectively, Rep. Mark Foley and Sen. Larry Craig, the former, a Republican member of the House from Florida and the latter a Republican senator from Idaho. Foley was accused of sending sexually suggestive messages to teenage boys who had been or who were at the time congressional pages, and Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in a men's bathroom and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct. Both Foley and Craig faced immediate calls for resignation by their critics on the other side of the aisle. Both were also criticized by members of their own party. For simplicity, the Democratic critics of Foley and Craig are called "progressives" while their Republican critics are called "conservatives." There are, however, significant logical differences between the criticisms of Foley and Craig by progressives and the similar criticisms of them by conservatives. Since conservatives are generally more critical of sexual indiscretion, their criticisms of Foley and Craig are generally consistent with their own values. Since, however, progressives are generally more tolerant of sexual indiscretions, their criticisms of these men are often inconsistent. Specifically, some progressives find Foley and Craig blameworthy for hypocrisy over acts which, had they been committed by progressives, they would not see as blameworthy. This is why progressives shift the criticism to a different level—namely, that these men are hypocritical. Since Foley and Craig had been champions of "family values," progressives cannot consistently criticize them for their sexual indiscretions. The criticism has to be that, since these men had violated their own conservative standards of morality, they are hypocritical

In Reason, Truth and History, Putnam provides an influential argument for the materialist view that the supposition that we are all “actually” brains in a vat [BIV’s] is “necessarily false”. Putnam admits that his argument, inspired by insights in Wittgenstein’s later views, is “unusual”, but he is certain that it is a correct. He argues that the claim that we are BIV’s is self-refuting because, if we actually are BIV’s, then we cannot refer to real physical things like vats. Although the present author agrees, fundamentally, with Heidegger’s view that we are essentially “in a world”, and, therefore, with Putnam’s conclusion that we cannot possibly be BIV’s, the paper argues that Putnam’s argument is fallacious. The proper conclusion to draw from Putnam’s argument is that asserting that one is a BIV is beyond the limits of a BIV’s language. That is, Putnam only shows that if we actually are BIV’s, then we cannot think or assert either that we are or that we are not BIV’s. It does not show that we are not “actually” BIV’s. The cogency of this criticism is illustrated with a concrete “science-fiction” example.

The present paper argues that Burnyeat's view is fundamentally correct, but approaches the issues from a somewhat different angle. The claim that forAristotle the form and the matter are non-contingently related is an allusion to Aristotle's difficult doctrine of the unity of substances. The functionalist interpretation underestimates Aristotle's doctrine of the unity of substance. Irwin thinks that Aristotle's view is a version of functionalism but acknowledges that his claims go beyond what is normally associated with functionalism. But Irwin too fails to take sufficient account of his own acknowledgement of the importance of the unity of substance doctrine. The proper appraisal of the functionalist interpretation cannot, therefore, avoid the "abyss" of the Metaphysics.