Bento Prado Neto

Parece haver quase um consenso, entre os comentadores, em torno da tese segundo a qual o “primeiro Wittgenstein” nada veria de problemático na ideia de um infinito atual, ao contrário do que claramente ocorre com o “segundo Wittgenstein”. O que eu gostaria de fazer aqui não é tentar reverter esse veredicto, mas sugerir que o exame das provas que o sustentam merece ser refeito. Para tanto, começarei por tentar mostrar como a letra dos aforismos 5.526 e 5.5262 parece levantar uma dificuldade para a tese consensual. Em seguida, procurarei encontrar, sob a letra, o espírito dessa dificuldade, isto é, buscarei nos princípios mais básicos do Tractatus as razões que subjazem às afirmações desses aforismos. Para finalizar, após fazer um balanço desse exame no que diz respeito à tese consensual, procurarei mostrar como ele aponta para a relevância da notação para o infinito, que João Vergílio Cuter prescreve para o Tractatus

Les Remarques philosophiques sont la première tentative de mettre en oeuvre le programme qui découle de l’échec du projet du Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Le noyau de ce programme est donné par l’abandon de l’analyse des nombres avancée dans le Tractatus. Wittgenstein se rend compte que les nombres doivent se trouver à la base même du langage, dans la structure des propositions élémentaires. En même temps, il se rend compte qu’il est impossible de fournir la logique sousjacente au langage avant d’avoir procédé à l’analyse. Le projet d’une investigation logique des phénomènes s’imposait, donc, même après l’abandon de l’idée d’un langage phénoménologique. The Philosophical Remarks is a first attempt at pursuing the philosophical agenda determined by the failure of the Tractarian project. The central point of this agenda is the abandonment of the analysis of number that had been given in the Tractatus. Wittgenstein realizes that numbers should be brought back to the basis of language, as part of the structure of the elementary propositions themselves. At the same time, he realizes that it is impossible to give the logic underlying our language before the process of logical analysis is carried out. He undertakes the project of a logical investigation of phenomena even after giving up the idea of a phenomenological language.

Aquilo que se poderia chamar de ?epistemologia do Tractatus?, isto é, sua reflexão sobre a ciência e, mais especificamente, sobre a Mecânica, foi alvo de pouca atenção por parte dos comentadores de Wittgenstein, muito embora seja considerável a quantidade de aforismos dedicados ao tema e essa reflexão seja inequivocamente importante para a história da epistemologia no século XX. O que pretendemos fazer aqui ? para além de lembrar esse tema esquecido ? é tão somente levantar um dos problemas que esses aforismos levantam ? o do estatuto a priori da mecânica ?, e indicar a direção geral na qual a sua solução deve ser procurada. Este artigo pretende determinar essa ?direção geral? de forma quase que tão somente negativa, indicando-a ao afastar certas interpretações. Se nos demoramos nessas interpretações , é porque elas fornecem, na sua contraposição à leitura que julgamos correta, uma base para avaliar a contraposição entre linguagem fenomenológica e linguagem fisicalista, tais como concebidas por Wittgenstein em 1929. O interesse de tal exame, assim, extrapolaria a exegese de teses tractarianas e atingiria um dos eixos da ruptura entre o Tractatus e o assim chamado ?segundo Wittgenstein?

Les Remarques philosophiques sont la première tentative de mettre en oeuvre le programme qui découle de l’échec du projet du Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Le noyau de ce programme est donné par l’abandon de l’analyse des nombres avancée dans le Tractatus. Wittgenstein se rend compte que les nombres doivent se trouver à la base même du langage, dans la structure des propositions élémentaires. En même temps, il se rend compte qu’il est impossible de fournir la logique sousjacente au langage avant d’avoir procédé à l’analyse. Le projet d’une investigation logique des phénomènes s’imposait, donc, même après l’abandon de l’idée d’un langage phénoménologique. The Philosophical Remarks is a first attempt at pursuing the philosophical agenda determined by the failure of the Tractarian project. The central point of this agenda is the abandonment of the analysis of number that had been given in the Tractatus. Wittgenstein realizes that numbers should be brought back to the basis of language, as part of the structure of the elementary propositions themselves. At the same time, he realizes that it is impossible to give the logic underlying our language before the process of logical analysis is carried out. He undertakes the project of a logical investigation of phenomena even after giving up the idea of a phenomenological language.

After the works of Jaako Hintikka, David Stern and, more recently, Denis Perrin, the idea that there is a wittgensteinian reflection upon the time and that it is at the origin of the abandonment of the project of a phenomenological language is nothing surprising, but we cannot consider it established yet. It seems to me that an important element in this debate is in chapter VII of the Philosophical Remarks : indeed, we find there the very first sustained discussion on the possibility of a phenomenological language —a discussion obviously centred on the question of time. Without aiming to propose an “alternative” reading of Wittgenstein’ reflections on time and the phenomenological language, I would like to bring to light the importance of this chapter for this problem and also try to show that the interpretation key must be looked for in a reductio ad absurdum whose base is the impossibility to measure time.

After the works of Jaako Hintikka, David Stern and, more recently, Denis Perrin, the idea that there is a wittgensteinian reflection upon the time and that it is at the origin of the abandonment of the project of a phenomenological language is nothing surprising, but we cannot consider it established yet. It seems to me that an important element in this debate is in chapter VII of the Philosophical Remarks : indeed, we find there the very first sustained discussion on the possibility of a phenomenological language —a discussion obviously centred on the question of time. Without aiming to propose an “alternative” reading of Wittgenstein’ reflections on time and the phenomenological language, I would like to bring to light the importance of this chapter for this problem and also try to show that the interpretation key must be looked for in a reductio ad absurdum whose base is the impossibility to measure time.

Dans cet article, j’essaie de montrer que l’idée du langage comme calcul structure la philosophie de Wittgenstein dans le Big Typescript. Pour ce faire, je commence par mettre en relief les différences entre la conception du langage comme calcul dans le Tractatus, et sa reformulation dans le Big Typescript ; j’explique ensuite comment l’idée de l’autonomie de la grammaire est à la base de la conception de la « grammaire » ou du langage comme calcul. J’espère pouvoir montrer ainsi l’unité de la philosophie de Wittgenstein aux alentours de 1932-1933. Il doit en ressortir que sa philosophie à l’époque du Big Typescript présente un intérêt en elle-même, quoiqu’il ne s’agisse pas encore de la philosophie des Recherches philosophiques.I aim at showing that the idea of language as a calculus is the central view that shapes Wittgenstein’s philosophy in the Big Typescript. In order to do so, I first contrast the conception of language as a calculus in the Tractatus with its reformulation in the BigTypescript ; then I explain how the idea of the autonomy of grammar grounds the conception of “grammar” or language as calculus. With this on hand, I give an overview of the unity of Wittgenstein’s philosophy around 1932-1933. It should become clear that his philosophy at the time is worth arguing for, even though it is not yet the philosophy of the PhilosophicalInvestigations