Wittgenstein e a verdade

<p>Este trabalho investiga a questão da verdade em Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). Buscar-se-á analisar o artigo <em>Wittgenstein on Truth</em> (2016) de Paul Horwich, confrontando-o com o de Hans-Johann Glock, intitulado <em>Truth in the Tractatus</em> (2006), tendo como objetivo compreender os pressupostos filosóficos centrais das teorias correspondencialista e deflacionária da verdade. Para tanto, na primeira parte, faremos uma caracterização geral dos elementos centrais das teorias substancialista e não-substancialista da verdade; na segunda parte, comentaremos as dificuldades apontadas por Horwich (2016) e Glock (2006) na identificação da concepção de verdade do <em>Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus</em> (1922) enquanto correspondencialista e caracterizaremos, conforme Horwich (2016), os três defeitos da teoria da verdade do primeiro Wittgenstein; na terceira parte, mostraremos que Horwich também se baseia no que Glock denomina de teoria da verdade oficial do <em>Tractatus</em>, bem como as razões pelas quais Horwich (2016) considera ilegítima a introdução no deflacionismo no <em>Tractatus</em> como tentativa de salvar a teoria da verdade tractatiana; na quarta parte, faremos uma breve caracterização da concepção de verdade nas <em>Philosophical Investigations - PI</em> (1953), apontando a sua centralidade na reorientação do pensamento wittgensteiniano. E, por fim, como considerações finais, mostraremos as diferentes conclusões de Horwich (2016) e Glock (2006), assinalando também um aspecto positivo e outro negativo do deflacionismo.</p>

Explication, Description and Enlightenment

In the first chapter of his book Logical Foundations of Probability, Rudolf Carnap introduced and endorsed a philosophical methodology which he called the method of ‘explication’. P.F. Strawson took issue with this methodology, but it is currently undergoing a revival. In a series of articles, Patrick Maher has recently argued that explication is an appropriate method for ‘formal epistemology’, has defended it against Strawson’s objection, and has himself put it to work in the philosophy of science in further clarification of the very concepts on which Carnap originally used it (degree of confirmation, and probability), as well as some concepts to which Carnap did not apply it (such as justified degree of belief). We shall outline Carnap’s original idea, plus Maher’s recent application of such a methodology, and then seek to show that the problem Strawson raised for it has not been dealt with. The method is indeed, we argue, problematic and therefore not obviously superior to the ‘descriptive’ method associated with Strawson. Our targets will not only be Carnapians, though, for what we shall say also bears negatively on a project that Paul Horwich has pursued under the name ‘therapeutic’, or ‘Wittgensteinian’ Bayesianism. Finally, explication, as we shall suggest and as Carnap recognised, is not the only route to philosophical enlightenment.

Alethic Deflationism and Normativity: A Critique

The paper starts by highlighting that virtually nobody would object to claims such as “to regard an assertion or a belief or a thought as true or false is to regard it as being right or wrong”—a claim that shows that truth is intrinsically normative. It is well known that alethic deflationists deny this. Paul Horwich, for instance, maintains that nothing shows that TRUTH is a normative concept in the way that OUGHT is. By relying on a distinction among dimensions of normativity I will try to pinpoint the weakness of Horwich’s argument in the fact that he works with a strong, uncalled-for, interpretation of normativity, whereas a weaker interpretation is more than enough. However, the impression might persist that a different understanding of the normativity of truth on the part of deflationists could eventually show the compatibility between alethic deflationism and normativity. The remaining part of the paper is devoted to contend that this is a wrong impression. Accordingly, it is stated that the normativity exerted by truth is ascribable in the final analysis to the world, and the provocative claim is defended that alethic deflationism lacks the conceptual resources to account for the relation between language and the world.***Deflacionismo Alético e Normatividade: Uma Crítica***O artigo começa destacando que praticamente ninguém se opõe a reivindicações como "considerar uma afirmação, uma crença ou um pensamento como verdadeiro ou falso é considerá-lo como correto ou errado" - uma afirmação que mostra que a verdade é intrinsecamente normativa. Sabe-se que os deflacionistas aléticos negam isso. Paul Horwich, por exemplo, sustenta que nada mostra que a verdade é um conceito normativo da maneira que deveria ser. Ao confiar em uma distinção entre as dimensões da normatividade, tentarei identificar a fraqueza do argumento de Horwich no fato de que ele trabalha com uma interpretação de normatividade forte, desnecessária, quando uma interpretação mais fraca seria mais do que suficiente. No entanto, a impressão pode persistir de que uma compreensão diferente da normatividade da verdade por parte dos deflacionistas poderia eventualmente mostrar a compatibilidade entre o deflacionismo e a normatividade alética. A parte restante do artigo dedica-se a afirmar que esta é uma impressão errada. Por conseguinte, afirma-se que a normatividade exercida pela verdade é imputável, em última análise, ao mundo, e a reivindicação provocativa é defendida de que o deflacionismo alético não possui os recursos conceituais para explicar a relação entre a linguagem e o mundo.

Paradoxes of Freedom II

Chapter 4 examines David Lewis’s contextualist solution to the grandfather paradox. Section 1 introduces the basic elements of Lewis’s view and explains how they are supposed to help solve the various paradoxes of freedom. Section 2 examines a famous objection to Lewis’s view that is put forward by Kadri Vihvelin. Section 3 addresses a very different kind of worry, due to Paul Horwich. (According to Horwich, grandfather-style paradoxes do not show that time travel is impossible, but they do give us reason to think it is unlikely.) Section 4 then concludes by surveying various “mechanical” paradoxes in which self-defeating acts seem to arise without any operation of free will.

The weight of truth: Lessons for minimalists from Russell’s Gray’s Elegy argument.

Minimalists, such as Paul Horwich, claim that the notions of truth, reference, and satisfaction are exhausted by some very simple schemes. Unfortunately, there are subtle difficulties with treating these as schemes, in the ordinary sense. So instead, the minimalist regards them as illustrating one-place functions, into which we can input propositions (when considering truth) or propositional constituents (when considering reference and satisfaction). However, Bertrand Russell’s Gray’s Elegy argument teaches us some important lessons about propositions and propositional constituents; and, when applied to minimalism, they show us why we should abandon it.Published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 114.3: 261–89.