Florian Franken Figueiredo

The book explores the impact of manuscript remarks during the year 1929 on the development of Wittgenstein’s thought. Although its intention is to put the focus specifically on the manuscripts, the book is not purely exegetical. The contributors generate important new insights for understanding Wittgenstein’s philosophy and his place in the history of analytic philosophy. Wittgenstein’s writings from the years 1929-1930 are valuable, not simply because they marked Wittgenstein’s return to academic philosophy after a seven-year absence, but because these works indicate several changes in his philosophical thinking. The chapters in this volume clarify the significance of Wittgenstein’s return to philosophy in 1929. In Part 1, the contributors address different issues in the philosophy of mathematics, e.g. Wittgenstein's understanding of certain aspects of intuitionism and his commitment to verificationism, as well as his idea of "a new system". Part 2 examines Wittgenstein's philosophical development and his understanding of philosophical method. Here the contributors examine particular problems Wittgenstein dealt with in 1929, e.g. the colour-exclusion problem, and the use of thought experiments as well as his relationship to Frank Ramsey and philosophical pragmatism. Part 3 features essays on phenomenological language. These chapters address the role of spatial analogies and the structure of visual space. Finally, Part 4 includes one chapter on Wittgenstein’s few manuscript remarks about ethics and religion and relates it to his Lecture on Ethics. Wittgenstein’s Philosophy in 1929 will be of great interest to scholars and advanced students working on Wittgenstein and the history of analytic philosophy.

The idea that the function of language is its use is commonly ascribed to the Later Wittgenstein. In this paper, I argue that there is textual evidence already coming from the early manuscripts proving that Wittgenstein's philosophical development is culminating in the idea of function as use around 1929–30. I interpret a passage from Ms‐107 in order to show that Wittgenstein's practical turn has sources in different stages of his philosophical development, each of which is dominated by different ideas: the idea of a picture theory; the idea of a phenomenological language and the idea of function as use.

The word ‘persuasion’ can be used in two different ways. It can either implicate a process of changing someone’s belief or action without any argumentative justification or, to the contrary, indicate that the changes are indeed a result of argumentative discourse. These two different uses are part of a conceptual development in the history of philosophy. Nowadays they are often placed in contrast to each other, whereby persuasion in philosophy as a non-argumentative act is taken as doubtful and even unsound. In the following paper I argue that the two types of processes should not be conceived of as incompatible, taking some notes from Wittgenstein’s On Certainty as an argumentative source. I will show that persuading as a rational practice is based on the possibility of persuasion as a process of inculcation. These processes can help illuminate the notions of good grounds, reasons and persuasion. In contrast to the common perspective, I will show that they are actually the normal case regarding interaction between humans and thus fundamentally provide the possibility of an argumentative practice of giving and accepting reasons. I conclude that the primacy of argumentative persuasion in relation to inculcation needs to be reversed and the common understanding of human beings as genuine rational acting beings needs to be questioned.

In Wittgenstein’s manuscripts dating from 1929 and 1930, there are a number of entries on the notion of probability. In this paper, I explore Wittgenstein’s manuscripts between October 1929 and March 1930 and demonstrate, first, that Wittgenstein completely rejects the assumption that probability statements are based on an a priori principle. Second, I argue that the standard interpretation, which claims that Wittgenstein adopts an ‘epistemological view’ of probability, significantly understates the importance of Wittgenstein’s development of the notion of hypotheses as a philosophical term of art.

In the sparse literature that is concerned with Wittgenstein’s views regarding children and childhood, in his later work, it is often suggested that Wittgenstein presents, or at least is committed to, a romantic notion of the child according to which children should be conceived of as innocent beings who are ontologically different from adults. In this paper I argue that Wittgenstein’s remarks do not support such an interpretation. First, I investigate the arguments for this view presented by Stanley Cavell, Yasushi Maruyama, and Philip Shields. Second, I consider an anti-essentialist understanding of Wittgenstein’s concept of childhood that has been suggested in opposition to the treatment of the child as the ‘ontological other’ and argue that Wittgenstein refers to the child as intermediate link with which to state grammatical facts. In contrast to these various views, I hold, third, that the PI is committed to a strong and substantial concept of childhood. I argue for this claim on the basis of the ‘Motto’ of the PI; Wittgenstein’s reference to the philosopher Augustine; and the use of ‘primitive’. I conclude that Wittgenstein’s concept of childhood in his later works neither romanticises nor dispraises the child as the ‘ontological other’.

Praktische Gründe dienen uns Menschen dazu, unser Handeln verständlich zu machen. Philosophen sind fasziniert vom Wesen praktischer Gründe. Auf was für einen Gegenstand beziehen wir uns, wenn wir unser Handeln erklären? Sind praktische Gründe als psychologische Zustände der handelnden Person aufzufassen, etwa als deren Wünsche oder Überzeugungen? Oder sind sie identisch mit den sich in der Welt befindenden Tatsachen, also unabhängig vom Geist der Akteure? Verursachen Gründe unser Handeln? Diese und andere Fragen sind aktueller Gegenstand einer vielschichtigen Diskussion in der analytisch geprägten Handlungstheorie. Dieses Buch bietet eine einschneidende Veränderung in der Sicht auf diese Fragen an. Überlegungen Wittgensteins folgend, werden praktische Gründe nicht als ontologischer Gegenstand, sondern als sprachliche Instrumente aufgefasst, die mit Funktionen und Zwecken verbunden sind. Auf diese Weise gelingt es, einen frischen Blick auf die normativen Bedingungen des Gebrauchs von Gründen, ihre Rolle in praktischen Überlegungsprozessen und ihre Bedeutung für die Motivation und Moral menschlichen Handelns in einer gemeinsam geteilten Praxis zu gewinnen.

In this paper, I explore Wittgenstein’s conception of a hypothesis as articulated in Chapters XII and XXII of ‘Philosophical Remarks’. First, I argue that in Chapter XII, Wittgenstein draws on his account of infinity to begin to challenge the view that all hypotheses can be proven by empirical evidence. I then argue that in Chapter XXII that Wittgenstein sharpens this conception of hypotheses claiming that no hypotheses can be verified. Finally, I suggest that Wittgenstein’s conception of a hypothesis relates to his practical view of how language functions.

Philosophy for Children has long been considered as crucial for children’s ethical and moral education and a decisive contribution for education for the democratic life. The book gathers contributions from experts in the field who reflect on fundamental issues on how childhood and ethics are interrelated within the P4C movement. The main interest of this volume is to offer an understanding of how different philosophical conceptions of childhood can be coordinated with different ethical and meta-ethical philosophical considerations in P4C addressing topics such as P4C and relativism, P4C and Virtue ethics, ethics and emotions in P4C, philosophical commitments and P4C application, and Socratic practice within a pragmatist framework. A thought-provoking collection about how assumptions of particular philosophical conceptions of childhood modify moral and ethical education and a testimony of the undeniable contribution of P4C for moral education and reconceptualization of childhood.

In this chapter I discuss Roger Trigg’s contribution to this volume on Wittgenstein, concepts, and human nature. Trigg shares many of the basic assumptions that form the methodological framework of cognitive science of religion (CSR) arguing that Wittgenstein’s later work shares common ground with presumptions, commitments, and accounts in cultural studies that are usually rejected by proponents of CSR. In particular, he challenges Wittgenstein’s notion of truth, that he sees under the threat of radical relativism. Against his view I argue that Wittgenstein’s later philosophy never comes at the cost of losing the notion of objective truth. It rather demands a change in the conceptual framework that underlies the use of this notion of truth. In the first section I argue for the claim in terms of Wittgenstein’s development. In the second section I explore the social nature of meaning in the Later Wittgenstein, arguing, in the third section, that it does not commit us to radical relativism. Finally, I draw some conclusions from my argument for the studies of CSR.

Wittgenstein's manuscript volumes from 1929: Reflections on the Chronology of MSS 105 – 107. In this paper I identify the evidence that might be used to establish a viable chronology for Wittgenstein’s writing of his manuscript volumes 105 – 107 and sections thereof. Since Wittgenstein omits to date his entries in these three 1929 volumes between February 15 and September 11, the evaluation of these different chronologies must remain somewhat speculative, but the justifications for each can, as I will show, be revealingly compared. I also argue that such attempts at a genealogical appreciation of Wittgenstein’s remarks is not only worthwhile on its own terms but it also further paves the way for an increased understanding of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. I articulate and evaluate three possible chronologies for the year 1929 and argue for the one I take to be the most plausible.

Logical Holism and Wittgenstein’s ‘Practical Turn’. – Logical holism is the idea that each elementary proposition belongs to a system and is logically connected to other propositions of that system. In this paper I explore this idea and draw its connections to the nature of negative propositions and the ‘problem of recognition’ on the basis of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass. In the first section I argue that in January 1930 the idea leads Wittgenstein to a better understanding of how the negative feature is expressed in propositions, thereby raising the problem of recognition to which he is not yet able to find a proper solution. In the second section I explore how the problem still persists during Wittgenstein’s ‘practical turn’. What he now calls the ‘problem of representation’ forces him to change again his conception of propositions. In the final section I argue that this change is mainly due to the modification of his conception of hypotheses which urges a solution to the problem of representation, though the problem remains unsolved in January 1930.

The book explores the impact of manuscript remarks during the year 1929 on the development of Wittgenstein's thought. Although its intention is to put the focus specifically on the manuscripts, the book is not purely exegetical. The contributors generate important new insights for understanding Wittgenstein's philosophy and his place in the history of analytic philosophy. Wittgenstein's writings from the years 1929-1930 are valuable, not simply because they marked Wittgenstein's return to academic philosophy after a seven-year absence, but because these works indicate several changes in his philosophical thinking. The chapters in this volume clarify the significance of Wittgenstein's return to philosophy in 1929. In Part 1, the contributors address different issues in the philosophy of mathematics, e.g. Wittgenstein's understanding of certain aspects of intuitionism and his commitment to verificationism, as well as his idea of "a new system". Part 2 examines Wittgenstein's philosophical development and his understanding of philosophical method. Here the contributors examine particular problems Wittgenstein dealt with in 1929, e.g. the colour-exclusion problem, and the use of thought experiments as well as his relationship to Frank Ramsey and philosophical pragmatism. Part 3 features essays on phenomenological language. These chapters address the role of spatial analogies and the structure of visual space. Finally, Part 4 includes one chapter on Wittgenstein's few manuscript remarks about ethics and religion and relates it to his Lecture on Ethics. Wittgenstein's Philosophy in 1929 will be of great interest to scholars and advanced students working on Wittgenstein and the history of analytic philosophy.

In this paper, I discuss whether the view that understanding is the ability to relate the use of an expression to a certain purpose leads to a theory of meaning as use. In particular, I investigate the view that a theory of meaning relies on the assumption that use is related to immanent purposes of language. I inquire whether it is possible to identify those purposes that seem essential for the use of language. Interpreting Wittgenstein, I argue that this idea relies on a misunderstanding between purposes and effects. Single purposes are not to be conceived of as essential for the use of language. However, if we want to speak of an essential purpose of language, I argue, this purpose is to be conceived of as an end in itself. I draw the conclusion that the use of language is an end in itself rather than a means that fulfils essential purposes.

This paper offers an interpretation of Wittgenstein's remarks that discusses the meaning of being in practical agreement with a rule, arguing that Brandom misconstrues the idea undergirding Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of the relation between the pragmatic and normative aspects of language. First, I discuss Brandom's idea of normative pragmatism and Wittgenstein's remarks on rule-following in the Philosophical Investigations. I argue that Brandom enforces the picture of implicit rules as a salient solution for the problem of infinite regress regarding explicit rules. Second, I compare both views and show that although Brandom takes his solution for a Wittgensteinian answer to the regress problem it is very likely that Wittgenstein's understanding of rule-following rather suggests a different view. Moreover, I explain why Brandom thinks that he cannot accept this view and why he offers an interpretation-based account instead which he thinks is underlying the agreement between rule and practice. Third, I criticize Brandom's account from a Wittgensteinian point of view arguing that what is underlying the agreement are so-called 'bedrock-practices' rather than mutual interpretations.

Developmental psychologists have argued for the view that understanding one’s own intentions and the intentions of others consists in the performance of a psychological mechanism and moreover that the ability to understand intentions depends on the ontogenetic development of this mechanism. In this paper, I refer to Michael Tomasello as the most notable proponent of this view and present arguments against it. I argue that understanding intentions results from social agreement in practice rather than from psychological processes transpiring in the minds of intentional agents. In my defence, I will appeal to the later Wittgenstein, who expounds the view I proffer here. First, I shall expose the key differences in each of their views, particularly in terms of how the ability to understand intentions is related to language acquisition. In the second section, I employ an argument from Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations to reject the claim that children in their first year of life develop an understanding of intentions ontogenetically. Finally, in the third section I argue that the understanding of an intention requires the ability to form an intention autonomously. In the process of forming an intention, the child creates its own understanding, namely one that is socially accepted if it is in agreement with established usage, customs, and institutions as part of everyday practice. On the basis of this view, I suggest that understanding intentions depends on the agreement of behaviour in certain practical contexts rather than as the accordance of mental states with a psychological mechanism.