What is it about?
Interpretation of Wittgenstein’s statement ‘whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent’ and consequences of rule-following paradox is the topic of this article.
Featured Image
Photo by Frank Holleman on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The revision of Wittgensteinian approach to the relations between speech and mind, and approaches to the speech by Vygotsky and Austin allow approving the disagreement with Wittgenstein and exhibit the cases when is necessary ‘to break silence and speak’. Argument is based on the hermeneutical approach to the skeptical image of Wittgenstein studies that disclose the meaning of hypothetic relevance between performative utterances and impulses generated by inner speech. Wittgenstein’s ideas are demonstrated as the contemporary version of a Pyrrhonism. Classical skepticism intensifies procedures for justification of philosophical knowledge, because philosophy tries to disprove skeptical claims. Wittgenstein studies play approximately the same role.
Perspectives
Interpretation of the proposition ‘whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent’ in a view of performative utterance allow coordinating the inner philosophical speech made by Wittgenstein, and the speech made by his commentators and critics.
Dr. Sergey B. Kulikov
Tomsk State Pedagogical University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Wittgenstein Studies and Contemporary Pyrrhonism, Philosophia, January 2018, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1007/s11406-018-9946-0.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
