Juliet Floyd

BOOK REVIEWS 475 mean the traditional notion of arche, i.e., a present homogeneous origin/kingdom" . The significance of this Ursprung is that of the event of world pretheoretically yielding itself itself and things . Van Buren's basic contention is that Heidegger's demythologized question about being in the early Freiburg period is overtaken by remythologizing tendencies, from the existential-transcendental configuration of the question in Being and Time to various mythopoetic reconfigurations. The latter developments are at odds with Heidegger's earlier Freiburg elaboration of the concrete historicity and the personal, lived, anarchic character of the question of being. One intriguing and far-reaching implication of van Buren's interpretation is that Being and Time amounts to an Abweg, a mistaken by-way, from which Heidegger, despite the Kehre, never fully recovers. The choice of the meta- phor of an Abwegis revealing and, in this connection, perhaps not entirely felicitous. For, if Being and Time is truly "off track," then there is presumably a right way and it must be possible to demonstrate both that right way and the nature of Being and Time's deviation from it. The terms of this crucial argument have been expertly set by van Buren in his monumental..

O presente artigo procede, em primeiro lugar, a um exame das evidências disponíveis referentes à atitude de Wittgenstein em relação ao, bem como conhecimento do, primeiro teorema da incompletude de Gödel, incluindo as suas discussões com Turing, Watson e outros em 1937-1939, e o testemunho posterior de Goodstein e Kreisel Em segundo lugar, o artigo discute a importância filosófica e histórica da atitude de Wittgenstein em relação ao teorema de Gödel e outros teoremas da lógica matemática, contrastando esta atitude com a de, por exemplo, Penrose. Finalmente, a autora responde também a criticas instrutivas feitas por Mark Steiner a um artigo seu publicado em 1995, as quais estabelecem a importância do trabalho semântico de Tarski, quer para o nosso entendimento das observacoes de Wittgenstein. /// This paper presents, first, a survey of current evidence available concerning Wittgenstein's attitude toward, and knowledge of, Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, including his discussions with Turing, Watson and others in 1937-1939, and later testimony of Goodstein and Kreisel Secondly, the article discusses the philosophical and historical importance of Wittgenstein's attitude toward Gödal's and other theorems in mathematical logic, contrasting this attitude with that of, e. g., Penrose. Finally, the author also replies to an instructive criticism of her 1995 paper by Mark Steiner which assesses the importance ofTarskih semantical work, both for our understanding of Wittgenstein's remarks on Godel, and our understanding ofGodeVs theorem itself.