DOCSLIB.ORG

Standing Before a Sentence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standing Before a Sentence YrsaYrsa YrsaNeuman Neuman Neuman Yrsa Neuman STANDSTANDSTANDI NI NIGNSTANDG G I N G BBEBEFOREFORFORE E E B E FORE A SE NTE NCE AA AS SE SENTENTNTEMoore’sENCENC paradoxNCEE andE a perspective from within language Moore’sMoore’sMoore’s paradox paradox paradox and and aand perspective a perspectivea perspective from from fromwithin within within language language language Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote to G.E. Moore that LudwigLudwigLudwig Wittgenstein Wittgenstein Wittgenstein once oncehe oncewrote had wrote stirredwrote to G.E.to up toG.E. a MooreG.E. philosophical Moore Moore that that wasps’that nest with his paradox, associated with the sentence “I believe it’s he hehad hehad stirred had stirred stirred up upa philosophicalup a philosophical a philosophicalraining and wasps’ it’swasps’ wasps’not nest raining”. nest withnest with The hiswith his problem his is that it would paradox,paradox,paradox, associated associated associated with with thewithbe the oddsentence the sentencefor sentence a speaker “I believe“I to believe“I assert believe it’s this it’s it’s thought about herself, rainingrainingraining and and it’s and it’s not it’s not raining”. not raining”. raining”.although The The Theitproblem could problem problem be istrue thatis about thatis itthat her,itwould it wouldand would although the | 2015 a Sentence Before Neuman | Standing Yrsa be beodd beodd for odd for a speakerfor a speaker a speaker to assertto toassertsentence assert this this isthought this well-formed thought thought about aboutand about herself,not herself, contradictory. herself, althoughalthoughalthough it could it couldit could be betrue betrue abouttrue about about her, her, and her, and although and although although the the the | 2015 a Sentence Before Neuman | Standing Yrsa | 2015 a Sentence Before Neuman | Standing Yrsa | 2015 a Sentence Before Neuman | Standing Yrsa Making use of the notion of a sentence having sense sentencesentencesentence is well-formedis well-formedis well-formed andin and anot andcontext not contradictory. not contradictory. of contradictory. significant use (inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein), the author explores the responses of some MakingMakingMaking use use of use theof ofthe notion the notion notion of theaof sentence ofa“wasps” sentence a sentence who having respondedhaving having sense sense to sense the paradox, and the background of their reactions. in ain context ina context a context of significantof ofsignificant significant use use(inspired use (inspired (inspired by byLudwig byLudwig Ludwig Wittgenstein),Wittgenstein),Wittgenstein), the the author the author author exploresThe explores contribution explores the the responses the ofresponses this responses work of is someof meta-philosophicalofsome some in of theof ofthe “wasps” the “wasps” “wasps” who who respondedwho responded respondedbeing to concerned theto tothe paradox, the paradox,with paradox, philosophical and and the and the themethod. Its point backgroundbackgroundbackground of theirof oftheir theirreactions. reactions. reactions.of departure is in the therapeutic strand of the tradition after the later Wittgenstein. TheThe Thecontribution contribution contribution of thisof thisof thiswork work iswork ismeta-philosophical ismeta-philosophical meta-philosophical in in in beingbeingbeing concerned concerned concerned with with philosophicalwith philosophical philosophical method. method. method. Its Itspoint Its point point of departureof ofdeparture departure is inis theinis inthe therapeutic the therapeutic therapeutic strand strand strand of theof ofthe tradition the tradition tradition afterafter afterthe the later the later Wittgenstein.later Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein. Åbo Akademi University Press | ISBN 978-951-765-798-3 ÅboÅbo ÅboAkademi Akademi Akademi University University University Press Press Press | ISBN | ISBN | ISBN 978-951-765-798-3 978-951-765-798-3 978-951-765-798-3 Yrsa Neuman, b. 1975, Master of Philosophy (Åbo Akademi University) 2003, Licentiate of Philosophy (Åbo Akademi University) 2010. Cover design: Esko Schmitz Photo: Henrik Serup Christensen Åbo Akademi University Press Tavastgatan 13, FI-20500 Åbo, Finland Tel. +358 (0)2 215 3478 E-mail: [email protected] Sales and distribution: Åbo Akademi University Library Domkyrkogatan 2–4, FI-20500 Åbo, Finland Tel. +358 (0)2 -215 4190 E-mail: [email protected] STANDING BEFORE A SENTENCE Standing Before a Sentence Moore’s Paradox and a Perspective from Within Language Yrsa Neuman Åbo Akademis förlag | Åbo Akademi University Press Åbo, Finland, 2015 CIP Cataloguing in Publication Neuman, Yrsa. Standing before a sentence : Moore’s paradox and a perspective from within language / Yrsa Neuman. - Åbo : Åbo Akademi University Press, 2015. Diss.: Åbo Akademi University. ISBN 978-951-765-798-3 ISBN 978-951-765-798-3 ISBN 978-951-765-799-0 (digital) Painosalama Oy Åbo 2015 Table of Contents 1 Standing Before a Sentence .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context as supplement .................................................................................... 6 1.2 Indeterminacy of meaning .............................................................................. 9 1.3 Preliminaries of a User Perspective ............................................................. 12 1.4 User Perspective: Background ..................................................................... 17 2 What Context Might Be ........................................................................................ 25 2.1 Wittgenstein’s conception of nonsense ...................................................... 29 2.2 Sentences, sense, and context of use ........................................................... 36 2.3 Nonsense and method ................................................................................... 40 2.4 Are Diamond and Hertzberg doing philosophy of language? ................. 46 2.5 Logically recognizable employment ............................................................ 50 2.6 An application: Nonsense in the Tractatus .................................................. 58 2.6.1 Counter-evidence ........................................................................................ 64 2.6.2 A conception of nonsense at all? .............................................................. 67 2.6.3 How should these inconsistencies be dealt with? ................................... 69 2.7 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................... 74 3 A Wasp’s Nest: Moore and Moore’s Paradox ................................................... 77 3.1. Moore’s paradox – early days ...................................................................... 82 3.2 Moore’s solution to the paradox .................................................................. 89 3.3 A special kind of implication ........................................................................ 94 3.4 “A given proposition” and the package theory ......................................... 97 3.5 Concluding words ........................................................................................101 4 Moore’s Paradox and the Pragmatics of Language .........................................103 4.4 A pre-pragmatic solution ............................................................................105 4.4.1 Illocutionary acts as philosophically illuminating .................................109 4.4.2 The principle of expressibility .................................................................112 4.4.3 The sincerity condition as a solution to the paradox ...........................115 4.5 Critique of ”expression” of belief as a mental state ................................117 4.5.1 Solutions and philosophical premises ................................................... 122 4.5.2 Language as a rule-governed activity ..................................................... 129 4.5.3 De re, not de dicto – Searle on the “use theory” ................................ 131 4.6 A preliminary conclusion ........................................................................... 136 4.7 Formalist solutions: sentence schema and logical form ........................ 136 4.7.1 The usability argument ............................................................................ 146 4.8 Longing for a solution ................................................................................ 149 4.9 Concluding remarks .................................................................................... 151 5 The Moorean Sentence in a User Perspective ................................................ 153 5.1 A Wittgensteinian view? ............................................................................. 156 5.2 The grammar of belief ................................................................................ 161 5.2.1 Assertions express beliefs ....................................................................... 161 5.2.2 The expectation of grammatical symmetry .......................................... 165 5.3 The relation between the first and the third person ............................... 169 5.4 The non-conjunction .................................................................................. 179 5.5 Grammar and logical grammar .................................................................. 185 5.6 Variations in a user perspective ................................................................. 186 5.6.1 The constitution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logic in Action: Wittgenstein's Logical Pragmatism and the Impotence of Scepticism
    This is the final, pre-publication draft. Please cite only from published paper in Philosophical Investigations 26:2 (April 2003), 125-48. LOGIC IN ACTION: WITTGENSTEIN'S LOGICAL PRAGMATISM AND THE IMPOTENCE OF SCEPTICISM DANIÈLE MOYAL-SHARROCK UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA 1. The Many Faces of Certainty: Wittgenstein's Logical Pragmatism So I am trying to say something that sounds like pragmatism. (OC 422) In his struggle to uncover the nature of our basic beliefs, Wittgenstein depicts them variously in On Certainty: he thinks of them in propositional terms, in pictorial terms and in terms of acting. As propositions, they would be of a peculiar sort – a hybrid between a logical and an empirical proposition (OC 136, 309). These are the so-called 'hinge propositions' of On Certainty (OC 341). Wittgenstein also thinks of these beliefs as forming a picture, a World-picture – or Weltbild (OC 167). This is a step in the right (nonpropositional) direction, but not the ultimate step. Wittgenstein's ultimate and crucial depiction of our basic beliefs is in terms of a know-how, an attitude, a way of acting (OC 204). Here, he treads on pragmatist ground. But can Wittgenstein be labelled a pragmatist, having himself rejected the affiliation because of its utility implication? But you aren't a pragmatist? No. For I am not saying that a proposition is true if it is useful. (RPP I, 266) Wittgenstein resists affiliation with pragmatism because he does not want his use of use to be confused with the utility use of use. For him, it is not that a proposition is true if it is useful, but that use gives the proposition its sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Koethe, University of Wisconsin
    Philosophical Investigations 26:3 July 2003 ISSN 0190-0536 On the ‘Resolute’ Reading of the Tractatus1 John Koethe, University of Wisconsin It is customary to divide Wittgenstein’s work into two broad phases, the first culminating in the Tractatus, and the second comprising the writings that began upon his return to philosophy in 1929 and cul- minating in the Investigations. It is also commonly assumed that the Tractatus propounds various doctrines concerning language and rep- resentation, doctrines which are repudiated in the later work, and often criticized explicitly. One problem with this view of the Trac- tatus is Wittgenstein’s claim in 6.54 that its propositions are “non- sensical,”2 a claim which on its face is at odds with the idea that they present substantive philosophical theories. The usual way of handling this problem is to assume that the claim is not to be taken literally, that the sentences of the Tractatus are not nonsense in the sense of mere gibberish, but are intended somehow to engender in the attentive reader a grasp of certain important aspects of the rela- tionship between language and the world. Beginning with her seminal paper “Throwing Away the Ladder,” Cora Diamond has proposed reading the Tractatus in a way that takes literally 6.54’s claim of the book’s nonsensicality, and rejects the idea that its sentences represent a kind of elevated nonsense intended to 1. This is a revised version of a paper originally presented at a symposium on the resolute reading of the Tractatus at the 1999 Central Division meetings of the Amer- ican Philosophical Association in New Orleans.
    [Show full text]
  • Stellar 08 Cover Page
    Stellar Undergraduate Research Journal Oklahoma City University Volume 2, 2008 Stellar Oklahoma City University’s Undergraduate Research Journal Inside are 2007-08 research papers spanning the disciplines at OCU, including criminology, English, economics, music, philosophy, political science, and psychology, representing the exceptional undergraduate research happening at Oklahoma City University. Editor-in-Chief: Gina Jennings Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Terry Phelps Stellar is published annually by Oklahoma City University. Opinions and beliefs herein do not necessarily reflect those of the university. Submissions are accepted from undergraduate students. Address all correspondence to: Stellar c/o The Learning Enhancement Center, 2501 N. Blackwelder Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73106. All submissions are subject to editing. 2 Contents Because I Do Not Hope to Turn Again:T.S. Eliot as the First Confessional Poet Kristin May……………………………………………………………3 Who Goes First Does Matter Unless No One Goes First: Personal Dyadic Space and Order Amy D. Simpson and Stacie Abla………….………………………...11 The Relationship Between Black Farmers and the United States Department of Agriculture Zachary L. Newland…..........................................................................19 Don’t Be Afraid of the Ball! Wittgenstein on Knowledge of Other Minds Jacob Coleman......................................................................................28 The Effects of Culture, Gender, and Recipient of Money on Moral Comfort Dashala Cubit, Lacey Novinska, and Danny Gering…………………39
    [Show full text]
  • CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy
    CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy Sandra Laugier, Translated by Daniela Ginsberg, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013, pp. 168, £ 24.50. ISBN-13: 978-0-226-47054-2 (cloth). Reviewed by Derek A. McDougall Originally published in French in the year 2000, the English version of Sandra Laugier’s short book of 10 Chapters plus an Introduction and Conclusion, has a 7 page Preface, 9 pages of Notes, a brief Bibliography and 121 pages of actual text. The reading of Wittgenstein and Austin that she provides is distinctly Cavellian in character. Indeed, Stanley Cavell in a dust-cover quote, remarks that her work is already influential in France and Italy, exciting as it does a new interest in ‘language conceived not only as a cognitive capacity but also as used, and meant, as part of our form of life’. Cavell goes on to say that this new translation is not merely welcome but indispensable, and has at least the capacity to alter prevailing views about the philosophy of language, so affecting what we have come to think of as the ‘analytic-continental divide’. Toril Moi of Duke Uni., in another dust-cover quote, states that Laugier’s reading of Wittgenstein-Austin-Cavell shows how their claim that ‘to speak about language is to speak about the world is an antimetaphysical revolution in philosophy that tranforms our understanding of epistemology and ethics.’ She concludes with the thought that anyone who wishes to understand what ‘ordinary language philosophy’ means today should read this book. This is a large claim to make, and anyone who is inclined to read Wittgenstein and Austin strictly in their own terms, and with their own avowed intentions - where discernible - steadily in view, is almost bound to conclude that it is simply not true.
    [Show full text]
  • Norman Malcolm, Edited with a Response by Peter Winch, WITTGENSTEIN: a RELIGIOUS POINT of VIEW?
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 12 1-1-1996 Norman Malcolm, edited with a response by Peter Winch, WITTGENSTEIN: A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW? Ronald E. Hustwit Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Hustwit, Ronald E. (1996) "Norman Malcolm, edited with a response by Peter Winch, WITTGENSTEIN: A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW?," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 13 : Iss. 1 , Article 12. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199613123 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol13/iss1/12 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. 146 Faith and Philosophy University Press, 1963); for criticisms of Almond and Verba, see Alasdair MacIntyre "The Essential Contestability of Some Social Concepts" Ethics 84 (1973) 1-9; Edward N. Muller and Mitchell A. Seligson, "Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships" American Political Science Review 88 (1994): 635-52. 8. Murray, op. cit., p. 103. 9. George Will "Conservatism and Character" in his The Morning After (New York: The Free Press, 1986), pp. 365-68, p. 365. 10. See Murray, op. cit., pp. 103ff. In these passages, Murray relies upon Adolph A. Berle, Jr. Power Without Property (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1959), pp. 98-116, where the issue of legitimacy is more explicitly addressed than in his own discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
    The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
    [Show full text]
  • The You-Turn in Philosophy of Mind: on the Significance of Experiences That Aren’T Mine
    THE YOU-TURN IN PHILOSOPHY OF MIND: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EXPERIENCES THAT AREN’T MINE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2018 By Joshua Stoll Dissertation Committee: Arindam Chakrabarti, Chairperson Vrinda Dalmiya Ronald Bontekoe Joseph Tanke Jesse Knutson Ashley Maynard Acknowledgements I could not have written this dissertation without the help and support of others, including my family, my friends, and my professors at the UH Mānoa Department of Philosophy. My parents Luci and Howie Stoll have always been there to unwaveringly support my endeavors. They have been a great source of love, inspiration, and guidance. I owe them everything I have become. My brother Adam and his wife Lisa and their kids have also been a great source of love, inspiration, and guidance. And I’m thankful that my nieces and nephew really got me moving on this project by playfully asking me every Thanksgiving (perhaps with some prodding from my parents) if I have finished it yet. In addition, I’d like to thank my fellow graduate student colleague-friends in the department, in particular: Matt Izor, Elyse Byrnes, Ben Zenk, Brandon Underwood, Jane Allred, and Joel Label. More particularly, out of this group, I’d like to thank Sydney Morrow for being a close friend and great officemate, as well as Ian Nicolay, for being a close friend and great roommate. Our camaraderie and support of each other, the community we formed, truly made me feel at home here in Hawai‘i.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5. Language: Private, Public, Solitary, Shared on the Received
    Chapter 5. Language: private, public, solitary, shared On the received reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations1, the book contains an argument purporting to show the impossibility of a private language. There has been a lively debate, however, on how the relevant notion of a private language is to be understood, and what considerations should be taken to rule it out. Some have understood Wittgenstein to mean that a language must be something that several speakers actually share, while others take him to mean that a language must be something that they could, in principle, share. Or, slightly differently put, on one view, speaking a language presupposes the actual existence of a linguistic community upholding certain shared standards of meaning and correctness, while on the other view, it only presupposes that such a community might have existed. These views have come to be known as the ‘community view’ and the ‘solitary speaker’ view, respectively.2 Furthermore, supporters of the community view tend to think that the discussion about privacy holds a central place in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, whereas those who support the solitary speaker view usually see its bearings as limited to the issue of the privacy of experience. 1 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958). References to this work will be indicated with the abbreviation PI followed by paragraph number. 2 Rather than two monolithic positions, what we have here is a spectrum of views ranging between two extremes. To mention but a few examples: the best-known formulations of the community view are to be found in Norman Malcolm, “Following a Rule” in his book Nothing is Hidden (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), as well as in his essay “Wittgenstein on Language and Rules” in Wittgensteinian Themes: Essays 1978-1989 (ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Realism and Rortianism
    Epistemology R R R By Cora Diamond yoe who reads aes oas essay reedo rely ad Trh R R R R R I. Conant and Rorty on realism: how Conant sets up the issue and how Rorty responds irs will desrie he dispe ewee Rory ad oa ao realis H R R R T room R R between R R R T H R R Realism 1. The thesis that the Thing-in-Itself is a condition of the possibility of knowledge T T Cora Diamond is Kenan Professor of Philosophy emerita at the University of Virginia. Her works have analyzed philosophical problems in many areas, including Witgenstein, Frege, Philosophy of Language, Ethics, Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Literature. Her notable works include “What Nonsense Might Be”, an analysis of Fregean nonsense, as well as numerous writings on all of Witgenstein’s lifetime work. She has also been noted for her writing on animal rights, including the article “Eating Meat and Eating People” published by Cambridge University Press. The Harvard Review of Philosophy vol.XXI 2014 HRP Vol 21.indd 56 12/1/14 8:56 AM R R 57 of appearances about the way the world is in itself. think knowledge Realism 2. The thesis
    [Show full text]
  • Kuang Tih Fan Dissertation Committee: Richard P. Haynes
    WITTGENSTEIN'S CONCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAll IN PARTIAL FULFILIMENT OF THE REQUlliEMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF OOCTOR OF PHIWSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY SEPTEMBER 1967 By Kuang Tih Fan Dissertation Committee: Richard P. Haynes, Chairman Christopher Gregory Harold E. McCarthy Winfield E. Nagley John A. Winnie PREFACE It is a peculiarity of the philosophical activity that ~he investigation of the nature, tasks and methods of philosophy constitutes a most important part of the whole enterprise. Every "revolution" in philosophy involves essentially a radical change in the conception of philosophy itself. If there has been a revolution in philosophy in recent years it is largely due to Wittgenstein' s perceptions into the nature of philosophy. According to G. E. Moore, Wittgenstein claimed that what he was doing was a 'new' subject, and not merely a stage in a 'continuous development'; that there was now, in philosophy, a 'kink' in the development of human thought comparable to that which occurred when Galilee and his contemporaries invented dynamics; that a 'new method' had been found, as had happened when chemistry was developed out of alchemy.1 How is this 'new sUbject' related to traditional philosophy am why should it be called 'philosophy'? In answering, Wittgenstein said that though what he was doing was certainly different from what traditional philosophers had done, yet people might be inclined to say 'This is what I really wanted' and to identi:f'y it with what they had done, just as a person who had been trying to trisect an angle by rule and compasses might, when shown the proof that this is impossible, be inclined to say that this impossible thing was the very thing he had been trying to do, though what he had been trying 1G• E.
    [Show full text]
  • Wittgenstein and the Moral Life: Essays in Honor of Cora Diamond" Edited by A
    Swarthmore College Works Philosophy Faculty Works Philosophy 4-1-2008 Review Of "Wittgenstein And The Moral Life: Essays In Honor Of Cora Diamond" Edited By A. Crary Richard Thomas Eldridge Swarthmore College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-philosophy Part of the Philosophy Commons Let us know how access to these works benefits ouy Recommended Citation Richard Thomas Eldridge. (2008). "Review Of "Wittgenstein And The Moral Life: Essays In Honor Of Cora Diamond" Edited By A. Crary". Ethics. Volume 118, Issue 3. 543-549. DOI: 10.1086/587764 https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-philosophy/65 This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alice Crary, ed., Wittgenstein and the Moral Life: Essays in Honor of Cora Diamond Wittgenstein and the Moral Life: Essays in Honor of Cora Diamond by Alice Crary, Review by: Reviewed by Richard Eldridge Ethics, Vol. 118, No. 3, Symposium on Agency (April 2008), pp. 543-549 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/587764 . Accessed: 17/02/2015 14:22 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanley Cavell and the Environmental Debate
    Un Poète Maudit: Stanley Cavell and the Environmental Debate TOMA! GRU"OVNIK ! ! ! O Lady! we receive but what we give, And in our life alone does the nature live: Ours is her wedding-garment, ours her shroud! And would we aught behold, of higher worth, Than that inanimate cold world allowed To the poor loveless ever-anxious crowd, Ah! from the soul itself must issue forth, A light, a glory, a fair luminous cloud Enveloping the Earth — And from the soul itself must there be sent A sweet and potent voice, of its own birth, Of all sweet sounds the life the element! SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE, Dejection: An Ode Images of landscapes and encounters with the natural world feature prominently throughout Stanley Cavell’s texts — so much so that Coleridge’s romantic visions of the natural environment (the cold, icy region through which the Mariner’s ship drifts) represent one of the cornerstones of Cavell’s understanding of “romanticism as work- ing out a crisis of knowledge,”1 and “skepticism [as] what romantic writers are locked in struggle against.”2 Indeed, skepticism as an interpretation of “metaphysical fini- tude” as “an intellectual lack”3 is seen by Cavell as something that has to be overcome !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. Cavell, In Quest of the Ordinary: Lines of Skepticism and Romanticism (Chicago, IL: Chi- cago University Press, 1988), 52. 2. Cavell, Disowning Knowledge In Seven Plays of Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2003), 8. 3. Cavell, Must We Mean What We Say?: A Book of Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1976), 263.
    [Show full text]