—ABSTRACT— Since the publication of Truth, Paul Horwich's 'Minimalism' has become the paradigm of what goes under the label 'the deflationary conception of truth'. Despite the many theoretical virtues of Horwich's minimalism, it is usually contended that it cannot fully account for the normative role that truth plays in enquiry. As I see it, this concern amounts to several challenges. One such challenge—call it the axiological challenge—is about whether deflationists have the theoretical resources to explain the value of truth. Some philosophers (e.g. Michael Lynch and Bernard Williams) have argued that they do not. The thought is that by being valuable in the way it is, truth plays a non-trivial explanatory role with respect to core phenomena of enquiry. In order to account for this aspect of truth, the challenge goes, we need to inflate truth's nature to an extent incompatible with core tenets of the minimalist conception. In this paper, I first provide some clarifications of what we mean exactly when we say that truth is valuable. By borrowing important distinction from the current debate in axiology, I elaborate a framework within which to conduct investigations into the value of truth. With reference to Horwich's discussion of the issue, I then discuss the link between questions concerning the explanatory role of truth and the issue of its metaphysical inflation. I conclude by briefly exploring a few strategies on behalf of minimalists to address the axiological challenge. 2

There are many variants of deflationism about truth, but one of them, Paul Horwich's minimalism, stands out because it accepts as axiomatic practical variants of the equivalence schema: ⟨p⟩ is true if and only if p. The equivalence schema is epistemologically fundamental. In this paper, I call upon empirical studies to show that practical variants of the equivalence schema are widely accepted by non-philosophers. While in the empirical data there is variation in how non-philosophers and philosophers talk about truth and how they judge that a sentence is true, a significant amount of data collected over the years reveal that the ordinary or folk view of truth is compatible with the epistemological fundamentality of alethic minimalism. This, I take it, suggests that people share in the same intuitions that form the bedrock of Horwich's minimalism.

ABSTRACT: Minimalists about truth contend that traditional inflationary theories systematically fail to explain certain facts about truth, and that this failure licenses a 'reversal of explanatory direction'. Once reversed, they purport that their own minimal theory adequately explains all of the facts involving truth. But minimalists' main objection to inflationism seems to misfire, and the subsequent reversal of explanatory direction, if it can be made sense of, leaves minimalism in no better explanatory position; and even if the objection were serviceable and the reversal legitimate, minimalists' adequacy thesis is still implausible.

This paper argues that Wittgenstein opposed theories of meaning, and did so for good reasons. Theories of meaning, in the sense discussed here, are attempts to explain what makes it the case that certain sounds, shapes, or movements are meaningful linguistic expressions. It is widely believed that Wittgenstein made fundamental contributions to this explanatory project. I argue, by contrast, that in both his early and later work, Wittgenstein endorsed a disjunctivist conception of language which rejects the assumption underlying the question that such theories seek to answer—namely, the assumption that the notion of a meaningful linguistic expression admits of non-circular analysis. Moreover, I give two arguments in favor of the view I ascribe to Wittgenstein: one based on later Wittgenstein's discussion of meaning skepticism, and one based on considerations concerning the identity of linguistic expressions.

The "use" theory of meaning arose from the later work of Ludwig Wittgenstein. On this approach, language and meaning are public affairs and learnable from public sources. Wittgenstein's teaching to "look for the use" of language was partly aimed in criticism of Cartesianism and similar doctrines of modern epistemology-down to the early work of Bertrand Russell. Wittgenstein rejected the notion that we might start off with reference to private, indubitable ideas or impressions and build from them to justify our knowledge of the external world. Language, meaning and reference are first of all public in character; and there can be no purely private language with meanings and/or referents which could only be known to a single person. We learn the language used to describe the world and to ascribe mental states to self and others on the basis of publicly available usage and (defeasible) criteria of application; and linguistic usage is grounded and understood in relation to our ongoing cultural practices, interactions and activities. The commonalities of perceptual experience-and the general reliability of perception-arise from biological evolution, and common evolutionary descent; and these are the biological facts underlying the philosophical appeal, persistence and plausibility of empiricism. The commonalities of thought, in contrast, arising out of the plasticity of mind, depend on interpreting linguistic expressions in a common, publicly available, object-oriented language. The empirical lexicographers who formulate definitions for dictionaries follow and elaborate Wittgenstein's advice on meaning and usage. Dictionary definitions and entries are based on extensive empirical studies of usage. Moreover, along with consulting experts, the same empirical practice is also important in writing dictionaries of technical terms of use in the various sciences. This point is important in understanding the relationship between the "use theory" and the languages and practices of the sciences. Dictionary definitions, understood as common meanings, generally aim to classify, comprehend or encompass, unify and explain the empirical evidence of usage. As will be argued, this last point constitutes a departure from or development of Wittgenstein and the "use theory."

This book is an introduction in a double sense. It is intended to introduce beginners in philosophy to the idea of philosophical nonsense and the problems it raises. But it is also addressed to professional philosophers, most of whom seem virtually unaware of the issue.

Certain philosophers, here called ‘nonsensicalists’, believe that much philosophy (philosophical questions as well as assertions) is simply nonsense in the strict sense of being meaningless. They proceed as though it were an established fact that there is such a thing as philosophical nonsense and the notion were quite unproblematic. By contrast, many other philosophers proceed as though either they had never heard of it or it were quite obvious that there is no such thing.

There can be little doubt that what the nonsensicalists are saying is of great importance – if they are right. But there are at least eight questions that must be addressed before anyone is in a position to start hunting down philosophical nonsense and they have all been woefully neglected.

The idea of philosophical nonsense goes back to Thomas Hobbes at least and yet its history remains largely unresearched.

In view of the neglect of the problems raised by the notion of philosophical nonsense, even by professional philosophers, it is not unduly optimistic to suggest that it is a topic to which relative newcomers to the subject might make a contribution.

Ludwig Wittgenstein thought that good philosophy unties the knots in our thinking that bad philosophy has put there and must make movements as complicated as the knots it unties. Is the notion of philosophical nonsense an essential aid to this – as Wittgenstein himself thought – or just another knot?

I suggest that, although the nonsensicalist challenge (obviously) matters, it has, at least in its Wittgensteinian form, been widely ignored.  On the other hand, those who still adhere to nonsensicalism (mainly Wittgensteinians) have been equally remiss in their failure to examine its presuppositions.

Alethic functionalism, as propounded by Michael Lynch, is the view that there are different ways to be true, but that these differences nevertheless contain enough unity to forestall outright pluralism. This view has many virtues. Yet, since one could conceivably apply Lynch's "one and many" strategy to other debates, I try show to how his argumentative steps can be used to solve—not just the controversy pertaining to truth—but any controversy that surrounds a "What is X?" question.

Philosophers know a great deal about how reasoning can go wrong but very little about what can go wrong with the conclusions that philosophers try to establish by their reasonings.  It is Stove’s great merit that he tackles the latter problem directly, though a certain dogmatism in his approach and a contemptuous attitude towards the ‘great’ philosophers have almost certainly led to a neglect of his work.

This paper inquires into the appropriateness of the label ‘neo-positivist’ that he applies to his own position and considers his view that there are probably, but not certainly, innumerable ways in which a philosophical claim can be wrong, mistaken, untrue, absurd even.  An attempt is made to relate our lack of knowledge here to the Chomsky/McGinn thesis that there may be kinds of problem with which the human intellect is just not equipped to deal.

In his influential book Truth, Paul Horwich deploys a philosophical method focused on linguistic usage, that is, on the function(s) the concept of truth serves in actual discourse. In doing so Horwich eschews abstract metaphysics, arguing that metaphysical or ontological conceptions of truth rest on basic misconceptions. From this description, one might reasonably expect Horwich's book to have drawn inspiration from, or even embodied philosophical pragmatism of some kind. Unfortunately Horwich relies upon Russell's tired caricature of pragmatism about truth (''p' is true if and only if it is useful to believe p' (Ibid., p. 34, p. 47)), and as a result underestimates the challenge it poses to Minimalism. This paper develops a pragmatist critique of minimalism that focuses on the seemingly central, plausibly constitutive role played by the concept of truth in the speech-act of assertion. The critique suggests that Horwich's Minimalism does not and cannot accomplish its stated goal of explaining all of the facts involving truth. Indeed, the kind of thorough-going deflationism sought by Horwich and others (including pragmatist sympathizer Bob Brandom) is incompatible with an adequate account of assertion, and perhaps other concepts (like belief, judgement and inquiry) as well.

Les pragmatistes soupçonnent la distinction entre vérité et justification d'être une de ces distinctions qui ne font pas de différence. L'objet de ce texte est d'établir que ce soupçon n'est pas fondé et combien au contraire est nécessaire, en pratique, l'usage du prédicat de vérité - aussi nécessaire que l'activité réflexive elle-même. En adoptant pour notre démonstration une conception logique de la vérité définie comme la notion la plus faible satisfaisant un "principe de décitation", le chemin parcouru est aussi une invitation à ne pas sous-estimer la valeur que les thèses dont s'est réclamé un certain  "déflationnisme" confèrent paradoxalement à la notion de vérité.

____
Cette version en ligne est une version très légèrement corrigée de la version publiée en juin 2019 dans le volume Figures de la vérité dirigé par F. Rivenc.

Les corrections portent sur quelques formulations en particulier p.2 et p.15.

Wittgenstein's notion of passing from 'disguised' to 'patent' nonsense is problematic once one realises that nonsense can have no logical properties.  I ask whether anything has yet been demonstrated to to be disguised nonsense.  No philosophical thesis (something that has been seriously offered as a truth) has, but even invented examples turn out to be controversial.  An example from elementary algebra however does seem to show how someone could unwittingly treat as sense what was in fact nonsense.  But, although the case genuinely deserves to be called one of disguised nonsense, there is still a crucial difference from what a case of philosophical nonsense would have to be.

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.

It's often said that according to deflationary theories of truth, truth is not a 'substantial' property. While this is a fine slogan, it is far from transparent what deflationists mean (or ought to mean) in saying that truth is 'insubstantial.'  Focusing so intently upon the concept of truth and the word 'true,' I argue, deflationists and their critics have been insufficiently attentive to a host of metaphysical complexities that arise for deflationists in connection with the property of truth.  My aim is to correct several misunderstandings as to what deflationists are after here--including some harbored by deflationists themselves--and to offer an account of the commitments about truth's nature that they ought to undertake.  In developing this account, I focus particularly upon the issue of what metaphysics of truth a Horwichian minimalist ought to adopt.

In this paper I introduce Horwich's deflationary theory of truth, called 'Minimalism', and I present his proposal of how to cope with the Liar Paradox. The proposal proceeds by restricting the T-schema and, as a consequence of that, it needs a constructive specification of which instances of the T-schema are to be excluded from Minimalism. Horwich has presented, in an informal way, one construction that specifies the Minimalist theory. The main aim of the paper is to present and scrutinize some formal versions of Horwich's construction.

Integrative complexity (IC) refers to a psychological construct, a measurement, and an experience. As a construct IC refers to our less than conscious thinking style in the face of difference or disagreement, how we process information, make decisions, solve problems. The cross-culturally validated empirical measurement frame of IC has predictive values. ’Low IC’ indicates a simple thinking style that is rigid and closed, a ’tunnel vision’ way of thinking that cannot respect or recognize different dimensions or perspectives on a topic, predicting destructive conflict or violence. An increasingly complex thinking style is able to ’see the big picture’, to differentiate and then integrate different dimensions and perspectives on topics, linking them in some way, predicting more peaceful outcomes to conflict. As an experience, IC refers to less or more awareness of thoughts, emotion, and physical states in self and others related to IC management. The IC Thinking Research Group (University of Cambridge) pioneered the ’operationalization’ of the IC measure into an educational method, program and professional practices. The coding system i.e. empirical measurement frame, has been developed further to take elaborative aspects into account. The two components of complex thinking, differentiation and integration can each be broken down in two sub- components, elaborative and dialectical. In order to clarify the pros and cons of integrative complexity theory and its further developments in IC Thinking, it is useful to investigate its philosophical background. The theory and its applications are essentially dealing with language and the skill to use words or concepts. However it should be noted that besides the skills an essential part of the theory and its applications deals with our unconscious processes that are not explicitly controllable. An alternative for a philosophy of language behind the theory of integrative complexity is to consider an application of the use theory of meaning to explain its central components. Minimalist theory of fiction (MTF) was developed to explain the philosophical problems of fiction, but can also be applied to integrative complexity. Using words in different situations requires an ability to read contextual cues in order to follow the correct rules for the uses of words in particular contextsii. From these philosophical grounds, the theory of integrative complexity (IC) appears as a totality of the language games people are playing. One may be limited to one game, which means separating oneself from others, considering this game to be ultimately defining the correct uses of words. When one recognizes alternative games going on, it means reaching higher levels of IC. What is crucial is that this does not require a person to reject their core beliefs, since they may still be true. This approach challenges IC theory to improve its coding system but also offers possibilities for further developments and applications.

Minimalism about truth is one of the main contenders for our best theory of truth, but minimalists face the charge of being unable to properly state their theory. Donald Davidson incisively pointed out that minimalists must generalize over occurrences of the same expression placed in two different contexts, which is futile. In order to meet the challenge, Paul Horwich argues that one can nevertheless characterize the axioms of the minimalist theory. Sten Lindström and Tim Button have independently argued that Horwich's attempt to formulate minimalism remains unsuccessful. We show how to properly state Horwich's axioms by appealing to propositional functions that are given by definite descriptions. Both Lindström and Button discuss proposals similar to ours and conclude that they are unsuccessful. Our new suggestion avoids these objections.

Abstract Paul Horwich:
The goal here is to demystify the relation of aboutness that associates thoughts and their linguistic expression with particular features of the world. It is argued that the main obstacle to providing a naturalistic account of this relation is a misguided ('inflationary') view of truth. A deflationary perspective, on the other hand, enables us to see how the basic use of a mental or physical term establishes its referent, thereby determining what the sentences containing it are about.

Abstract response:
My disagreement with the deflationist treatment of truth affects my attitude to Paul Horwich’s approach to meaning and intentionality. In my response I summarize objections to the deflationist account of truth developed in some detail in chapters 2, 7, and 12, and argue that the notion of intentionality should be treated naturalistically in a broader context than the context of the referential import of the locution “means that”.

Paul Horwich has advocated and attributed to the later Wittgenstein a “use-theory of meaning” that aims to demystify meaning by reducing it to pure regularities of use. This chapter challenges Horwich’s appropriation of Wittgenstein and seeks to make room for a different conception of the demystification of meaning. It argues that Wittgenstein does indeed aim to demystify meaning, but does not think that this involves any attempt to reduce meaning to something else.

Хорвич дает прекрасный анализ Витгенштейна (W) и является ведущим ученым W, но, на мойвзгляд, все они не дотягивают до полной оценки, как я подробно объяснить в этом обзоре и многие другие. Если одно не понимает W (и предпочтительно Searle также) после этого я не вижу как одно смогло иметь больше чем поверхностное вникание общего соображения и мысли более высокого заказа и таким образом всего сложного поведения (психология, социология, антропология, история, словесность, общество). В двух словах, W продемонстрировал, что, когда вы показали, как предложение используется в контексте интересов, нет ничего более сказать. Я начну с нескольких заметных цитат, а затем дать то, что я думаю, являются минимальными соображениями, необходимыми для понимания Витгенштейна, философии и человеческого поведения.
Во-первых, можно отметить, что положить "мета" перед любым словом должно быть подозреваемым. W заметил, например, что метаматематика математика, как и любой другой. Представление о том, что мы можем выйти за рамки философии (т.е. описательной психологии мысли высшего порядка), само по себе является глубокой путаницей. Еще одно раздражение здесь (и на протяжении академических письменной форме в течение последних 4 десятилетий) является постоянным обратным лингвистического сексизма "ее" и "ее" и "она" или "он / она" и т.д., где "они" и "свои" и "их" будет делать красиво. Аналогичнымобразом, использование французского слова "репертуар", где английский "репертуар" будет делать довольно хорошо. Основным недостатком является полный отказ (хотя и очень часто), чтобы использовать то, что я вижу, как чрезвычайно мощный и интуитивно понятный вид двух систем HOT и Карл рамки, которые я изложил выше. Это особенно остро в главе о значении p111 et seq. (особенно в сносках 2-7), где мы плаваем в очень мутной воде без рамки автоматизированной истинной только S1, пропозиционный диспозиционный S2, COS и т.д. Можно также получить лучшее представление о внутреннем и внешнем, читая, например, Джонстон или Бадд (см. мои отзывы). Хорвич однако делает много резких комментариев. Мне особенно понравилось его резюме импорта W анти-теоретической позиции на p65. Он должен уделять больше внимания "На определенности", в последнее время предметом много усилий Даниэле Мойал-Шаррок, Coliva и другие и кратко в моих последних статьях.
Хорвич является первым курсом, и его работа стоит усилий. Хочется надеяться, что он (и все) изучат Сирла и некоторые современные психологии, а также Хатто, Рид, Хатчинсон, Стерн, Мойал-Шаррок, Прогулка, Хакер и Бейкер и т.д., чтобы достичь широкого современного взгляда на поведение. Большинство их работ на academia.edu и philpapers.org, но для PMS Хакер см. http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.html.
Он дает один из самых красивых резюме, где понимание Витгенштейна оставляет нам, что я когда-либо видел.
"Не должно быть никаких попыток объяснить нашу лингвистическую/концептуальную деятельность (PI 126), как в уменьшении арифметики Фрейда к логике; не попытка дать ему эпистемологические основы (PI 124), как в смысле основанных счетов априори знаний; не попытка охарактеризовать идеализированные формы его (PI 130) как в логике чувства; никаких попыток реформировать его (PI 124, 132), как в теории ошибок Маки или интуиции Дамметт; никаких попыток упорядочить его (PI 133), как в рассказе Квина о существовании; не попытка сделать его более последовательным (PI 132), как в ответ Тарски на парадоксы лжецов; и не попытка сделать его более полным (PI 133), как в урегулировании вопросов личной идентичности для странных гипотетических сценариев "телепортации".
Наконец, позвольте мне предположить, что с точки зрения я призвал здесь, W находится в центре современной философии и психологии и не является неясным, трудным или неуместным, но мерцающий, глубокий и кристально чистый и что пропустить его, чтобы пропустить один из величайших интеллектуальных приключений возможно.
Те, кто желает всеобъемлющего до современных рамок для человеческого поведения из современных двух systEms зрения могут проконсультироваться с моей книгой"Логическая структура философии, психологии, Минd иязык в Людвиг Витгенштейн и Джон Сирл" второй ред (2019). Те, кто заинтересован в более моих сочинений могут увидеть "Говоря обезьян - Философия, психология, наука, религия и политика на обреченной планете - Статьи и обзоры 2006-2019 3-й ed
(2019) и suicidal утопических заблуждений в 21-мst веке 4-й ed (2019) th и другие.

I consider the dispute, not with a view to reaching a final verdict, but for the light it sheds on the notion of philosophical nonsense.  How does it look to a sceptic about philosophical nonsense?  It is generally agreed that the Tractatus is an unsatisfactory work, if the traditional reading of, for example, G. E. M. Anscombe or Peter Hacker is correct.  But is it any better on the ‘resolute’ reading of Cora Diamond or James Conant?  I maintain that it is more difficulty to handle the concept of nonsense than nonsensicalists of any stripe realise.  If the ‘ineffable truths’ and ‘important nonsense’ of traditional readings raise problems, so too do the contrast between meaningful frame and nonsensical core, Diamond’s idea that one can imaginatively identify with the nonsense-talker and the mysterious new entity, ‘transitional’ nonsense.  Meaning and communication, I suggest, keep reappearing precisely where they should not.

The question cannot be more simple. Like in a Czech comic book : "Who do you vote for?" Should we vote for Kripke with his essential normativity constraint presumably eliminating all factual account of meaning or should we vote for Horwich who proposes such an account notwithstanding Kripke's complaints? Should we be normativists or rather descriptionists? The answer cannot, however, be so straight, for it depends in a large extent on expectations that the theory of meaning is supposed to account for.

This is a talk recorded in 2014 at the Aristotelian Society. A paper version of the talk is available in the "Papers" section, above.

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.

Possible and narrative worlds are traditionally the most influential tools for explaining our understanding of fiction. One obvious implication of this is considering fiction as a matter of pretence. The theory I offer claims that it is a mistake to take truth as a substantial notion. This view rejects possible worlds and pretence as decisive features in dealing with fiction. Minimalist theory of fiction offers a solution that gives a way to combine a philosophical theory of meaning and views of literary theory. Narrative worlds approach saves its usefulness since its focus is more in the psychological process of reading. Minimalist theory of fiction is based on the minimal theory of truth and the use theory of meaning. The idea of language games as a practice of constructing contextual meanings is also decisive. A sentence is not true because it corresponds to a fact but because it is used in a right way in certain circumstances. The rejection of the possible worlds approach is thu...

Horwich daje grzywny analizy Wittgenstein (W) i jest wiodącym W uczony, ale moim zdaniem,  wszystkie one nie są w pełni docenić, jak wyjaśniam na długo w tej recenzji i wiele innych. Jeśli ktoś nie rozumie W (a najlepiej Searle również), to nie widzę, jak można mieć więcej niż powierzchowne zrozumienie filozofii i wyższego rzędu myśli, a tym samym wszystkich złożonych zachowań (psychologia, socjologia, antropologia, historia, literatura, społeczeństwo). W skrócie, W wykazał, że kiedy pokazałeś, jak zdanie jest używane w kontekście zainteresowania, nie ma nic więcej do powiedzenia. Zacznę od kilku znaczących cytatów, a następnie dać to, co myślę, że są minimalne względy niezbędne do zrozumienia Wittgenstein, filozofii i ludzkiego zachowania.

Po pierwsze można zauważyć, że umieszczenie "meta" przed każdym słowem powinno być podejrzane. W zauważył na przykład, że metamatematyka jest matematyka jak każdy inny. Przekonanie, że możemy wyjść poza filozofię (tj. psychologię opisową myśli wyższego rzędu) jest samo w sobie głębokim zamieszaniem. Innym irytacją tutaj (i przez całe pisanie akademickie w ciągu ostatnich 4 dekad) jest stały odwrócony seksizm językowy "jej" i "jej" i "ona" lub "on / ona" itp., gdzie "oni" i "ich" i "oni" zrobiliby ładnie. Podobnieużycie  francuskiego słowa "repertuar", w którym angielski "repertuar" będzie całkiem dobrze. Głównym niedoborem jest całkowita porażka (choć bardzo często) do zatrudniania tego, co widzę jako niezwykle potężny i intuicyjny widok dwóch systemów HOT i Searle ramy, które mam opisane powyżej. Jest to szczególnie wzruszające w rozdziale o znaczeniu p111 et naeq. (zwłaszcza w przypisach 2-7), gdzie pływamy w bardzo błotnistej wodzie bez ram zautomatyzowanych prawdziwych tylko S1, dyspozycyjnie propositional S2, COS itp. Można również uzyskać lepszy widok na wewnętrznej i zewnętrznej, czytając np. Horwich jednak sprawia, że wiele wnikliwych komentarzy. Szczególnie podobało mi się jego podsumowanie importu anty-teoretyczne stanowisko W na p65. On musi położyć większy nacisk na "Na pewność", ostatnio przedmiotem wielu wysiłków Daniele Moyal- Sharrock, Coliva i innych i podsumował w moich ostatnich artykułów.



Horwich jest pierwszą stawką, a jego praca warta wysiłku. Można mieć nadzieję, że on (i wszyscy) będą studiować Searle i niektóre nowoczesne psychologii, jak również Hutto, Read, Hutchinson, Stern, Moyal-Sharrock, Stroll, Hacker i Baker itp., aby osiągnąć szeroki nowoczesny pogląd na zachowanie. Większość ich dokumentów jest na academia.edu i philpapers.org, ale dla PMS Hacker zobacz http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.html.

On daje jeden z najpiękniejszych podsumowań, gdzie zrozumienie Wittgenstein pozostawia nas, że kiedykolwiek widziałem.

"Nie może być próby wyjaśnienia naszej działalności językowej/koncepcyjnej (PI 126), jak w redukcji arytmetyki Frege'a do logiki; nie próbuj nadać mu podstaw epistemologicznych (PI 124) w rozumieniu opartych na rachunkach wiedzy a priori; nie próbuj ą scharakteryzować wyidealizowanych jego form (PI 130) jak w sensie logiki; nie próbuj reformować go (PI 124, 132), jak w teorii błędów Mackie'ego lub intuicji Dummetta; nie podjęto próby jej usprawnienia (PI 133), jak w relacji Quine z istnienia; nie próbuj uczynić go bardziej spójnym (PI 132), jak w odpowiedzi Tarskiego na paradoksy kłamców; i nie ma próby uczynienia go bardziej kompletnym (PI 133), jak w rozstrzyganiu kwestii tożsamości osobistej dla dziwacznych hipotetycznych scenariuszy "teleportacji".

Wreszcie, pozwól mi zasugerować, że z perspektywy mam zachęcać tutaj, W jest w centrum współczesnej filozofii i psychologii i nie jest niejasne, trudne lub nieistotne, ale scintillating, głębokie i krystalicznie czyste i że tęsknić za nim jest przegapić jedną z największych przygód intelektualnych możliwe.

Ci, którzy chcą kompleksowych, aktualnych ram dla ludzkich zachowań z nowoczesnego widoku dwóch systems, mogą zapoznać sięz moją książką "Logiczna struktura filozofii, psychologii, mind ijęzyka w Ludwig  wittgenstein i John  Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Osoby zainteresowane bardziej moimi pismami mogą zobaczyć "Talking Monkeys - Filozofia, Psychologia, Nauka, Religia i Polityka na Skazanej Planecie - Artykuły i recenzje 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) i Suicidal Utopian Urojenia w 21wieku  4th  th ed (2019) i inne.

Horwichはウィトゲンシュタイン(W)の細かい分析を行い、Wの第一人者ですが、私の見解では、このレビューや他の多くの人が長々と説明しているように、それらはすべて完全な感謝に満ち不足しています。W(そして好ましくはサールも)を理解していないならば、私は哲学と高次思考、したがってすべての複雑な行動(心理学、社会学、人類学、歴史、文学、社会)の表面的な理解以上のものを持つことができる方法を見ません。一言で言えば、Wは、あなたが興味のある文脈で文がどのように使用されているかを示したとき、これ以上言うことは何もあることを実証しました。私はいくつかの注目すべき引用から始め、その後、私はウィトゲンシュタイン、哲学と人間の行動を理解するために必要な最小限の考慮事項であると思うものを与えます。

まず、単語の前に「meta」を置くことは疑わしいはずです。Wは、例えば、メタ数学は他の数学と同様に、言った。哲学の外に出ることができるという考え(すなわち、高次思考の記述心理学)は、それ自体が深い混乱です。ここでのもう一つのいらだちは、「彼女」と「彼女」と「彼女」や「彼女/彼女」などの絶え間ない逆言語的性差別です。同様に、英語の「レパートリー」がうまくいくフランス語の「レパートリー」の使用もうまくいくでしょう。大きな欠陥は、私が上記で概説したHOTとサールのフレームワークの非常に強力で直感的な2つのシステムビューとして私が見ているものを採用する完全な失敗(非常に一般的ですが)です。これは、特に意味p111 et seq.(特に脚注2-7)に関する章では、自動化された真のS1、命題の処分S2、COSなどの枠組みなしで非常に泥だらけの水の中で泳ぎます。ジョンストンやバッド(私のレビューを参照)などを読むことで、内側と外側のより良いビューを得ることもできます。しかし、ホーウィッチは多くの切迫したコメントをします。私は特にp65に対するWの反理論的スタンスの輸入の彼の要約が好きでした。彼は最近、ダニエレ・モヤル・シャーロック、コリバなどによる多くの努力の主題である「確実性について」にもっと重点を置く必要があり、私の最近の記事で要約されています。


ホーウィッチは一流であり、彼の仕事は努力の価値があります。彼(そして誰もが)サールといくつかの現代心理学だけでなく、ハット、リード、ハッチンソン、スターン、モヤアル・シャーロック、ストロール、ハッカー、ベイカーなどを研究し、幅広い現代的な行動観を達成することを望んでいます。彼らの論文のほとんどはacademia.eduとphilpapers.orgにありますが、PMSハッカーにとってはhttp://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.htmlを参照してください。

彼はウィトゲンシュタインの理解が私が今まで見た私たちを残す場所の最も美しい要約の一つを与えます。

「フレージの論理への算術の削減のように、言語的/概念的な活動(PI 126)を説明する試みがあってはならない。それを認識論的基盤(PI 124)に与える試みはありません。.意味論理のように理想化された形式(PI 130)を特徴付けようとする試みはありません。マッキーの誤り理論やダメットの直感のように、それを改革する試み(PI 124、132)はありません。クインの存在のアカウントのようにそれを合理化する試みはありません (PI 133)。嘘つきのパラドックスに対するタルスキーの反応のように、それをより一貫させる試み(PI 132)を作る試みはありません。奇妙な仮説的な「テレポーテーション」シナリオのための個人的なアイデンティティの質問の解決のように、それをより完全に(PI 133)にしようとする試みはありません。

最後に、私がここで奨励した視点で、Wは現代哲学と心理学の中心にあり、あいまいで困難でも無関係でもありませんが、シンチレーション、深遠でクリスタルクリアであり、彼を見逃すのは可能な限り最大の知的冒険の1つを逃すということです。

現代の2つのシス・エムスの見解から人間の行動のための包括的な最新の枠組みを望む人は、私の著書「ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールの第2回(2019)における哲学、心理学、ミンと言語の論理的構造」を参照することができます。私の著作の多くにご興味がある人は、運命の惑星における「話す猿--哲学、心理学、科学、宗教、政治―記事とレビュー2006-2019 第3回(2019)」と21世紀4日(2019年)の自殺ユートピア妄想st Century 4th ed (2019)などを見ることができます。

2. Truth-bearers                                         1
3.    Classical Correspondence Theory            2
4. Coherence Theory of Truth                 2
5. Pragmatist Theories of Truth                 3
6. Epistemic Theories of Truth                 3
7. Formal Approaches to Truth                 4
8. Deflationist and Minimalist Theories 5
9. Developments in the Correspondence Theory 6

霍维奇对维特根斯坦(W)进行了精妙的分析,是一位顶尖的W学者,但在我看来,他们都没有达到完全的欣赏,正如我在评论和许多其他评论中详细解释的那样。如果一个人不理解W(最好也是西尔),那么我看不出一个人怎么会对哲学和更高层次的思想,从而对所有复杂的行为(心理学,社会学,人类学,历史,文学,社会)。简而言之,W 演示了当您演示了句子在感兴趣的上下文中的使用方式时,就没有什么可说的了。我将从几个值得注意的引言开始,然后给出我认为是理解维特根斯坦、哲学和人类行为所需的最低考虑因素。
首先,人们可能会注意到,把"元"放在任何单词前面都应该是值得怀疑的。例如,元数学和任何其他数学一样。我们可以走出哲学的概念(即更高层次思维的描述性心理学)本身就是一种深刻的困惑。这里的另一个刺激(以及过去40年的学术写作)是"她"和"她"和"她"或"他/她"等不断的反向语言性别歧视,其中"他们"和"他们"和"他们"会很好。同样,使用法语单词""汇编",其中英语的"汇编"将做得很好。主要的不足是完全失败(虽然很常见),使用我所看到的浩浩特和西尔框架的非常强大和直观的两个系统视图,我已经概述了上面。这在关于含义 p111 及其 seq 的章节(特别是在脚注 2-7 中)中尤为尖锐,在非常泥泞的水中游泳,没有自动真正的 S1、命题处置 S2、COS 等框架。通过阅读约翰斯顿或巴德(见我的评论),还可以更好地了解内部和外部。然而,霍维奇却发表了许多尖锐的评论。我特别喜欢他关于W的反理论立场在第65页导入的总结。他需要更加强调"关于确定性",最近丹尼尔·莫亚尔-沙罗克、科利瓦等人努力的主题,并在我最近的文章中进行了总结。
霍维奇是一流的,他的工作非常值得付出努力。人们希望他(和每个人都)将学习西尔和一些现代心理学以及胡托,里德,哈钦森,斯特恩,莫亚尔-沙罗克,斯特罗,黑客和贝克等,以获得广泛的现代行为观。他们的大部分论文都academia.edu和philpapers.org,但对于PMS黑客看http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.html。
他给出了一个最美丽的总结,其中对维特根斯坦的理解留给我们,我见过。
"绝不能像弗雷格将算术缩减为逻辑那样,试图解释我们的语言/概念活动 (PI 126);没有试图给它认识论基础(PI 124),如在基于意义的先验知识的帐户;没有试图将理想化的形式(PI 130)描述为感官逻辑;没有试图改革它(PI 124,132),如麦基的错误理论或杜梅特的直觉;没有试图精简它(PI 133),如在奎因的存在帐户;没有试图使它更一致(PI 132),如塔尔斯基对说谎悖论的反应;并且没有试图使它更完整 (PI 133), 在解决奇怪的假想"传送"场景的个人身份问题。
最后,让我建议,以我在这里鼓励的观点,W是当代哲学和心理学的中心,不是晦涩,困难或不相干,但闪烁,深刻和水晶般清晰,想念他是错过一个最伟大的智力冒险可能。
那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-2019年第3次(2019
年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019)

Although in my book Logical Forms I raise several objections to the basic ideas of the minimalist conception of truth, as formulated by Frege and by Tarski, I did not discuss more recent formulations. Since I think the main problem for the minimalist conception of truth is the problem of truth-value gaps, I will raise some questions about Paul Horwich's influential discussion of this problem, especially in connection with his definition of falsity in sections 26-27 of Truth.

In his recent book "Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy", Paul Horwich has advanced a view of later Wittgenstein centering on the claim that Wittgenstein’s discussion of meaning should be regarded as far less central than it usually is by Wittgenstein scholarship. He argues that Wittgenstein’s therapeutic philosophy does not rest on any particular account of meaning – especially not on a “use-account” of meaning – but has its origin in his “deflationary”, anti-theoretical metaphilosophical viewpoint. However, in his exposition of this methodology, Horwich is mentioning general misconceptions about meaning which impede our seeing differences in use – misconceptions he counters with statements of the form “meaning is use”. The question is: How does this fit with his view that Wittgenstein’s discussion of meaning is of no central relevance for his “metaphilosophy”? I will show how this dilemma can be avoided by reconsidering the role of remarks on the grammar of ‘meaning’ for the debunking of such misconceptions.

In this book, Allan Gibbard develops a 'normativist' and expressivist account of meaning, according to which meaning ascriptions concern how we ought to use language, and are explained as complex plans for using language in certain ways. The book, which is in significant part based on articles that Gibbard has published on the topic over the past two decades, or so, is the clearest and most thorough examination of this combination of ideas to date. Gibbard does not much discuss other normativist views or the criticisms of normativism, but rather focuses on outlining his own distinctive approach. A part of the project is to use expressivist metanormative theory to offer insights into issues in philosophy of language; another part is to continue developing Gibbard's influential expressivist metanormative theory through examining the implications for expressivism of the idea that the concept of meaning would be normative.

Horwich dà una bella analisi di Wittgenstein (W) ed è uno studioso W leader, ma a mio parere,  tutti non sono al di sotto di un pieno apprezzamento, come spiego a lungo in questa recensione e molti altri. Se non si capisce W (e preferibilmente anche Searle) allora non vedo come si possa avere più di una comprensione superficiale della filosofia e del pensiero di ordine superiore e quindi di tutti i comportamenti complessi (psicologia, sociologia, antropologia, storia, letteratura, società). In poche parole, W ha dimostrato che quando hai dimostrato come una frase viene usata nel contesto di interesse, non c'è più nulla da dire. Inizierò con alcune citazioni degne di nota e poi darò quelle che penso siano le considerazioni minime necessarie per capire Wittgenstein, la filosofia e il comportamento umano.

La prima si potrebbe notare che mettere "meta" davanti a qualsiasi parola dovrebbe essere sospetto. W ha osservato ad esempio, che la metamatematica è matematica come qualsiasi altra. L'idea che possiamo uscire dalla filosofia (cioè la psicologia descrittiva del pensiero di ordine superiore) è di per sé una profonda confusione. Un'altra irritazione qui (e per tutta la scrittura accademica negli ultimi 4 decenni) è il costante sessismo linguistico inverso di "lei" e "suo" e "lei" o "lui/ lei" ecc., dove "loro" e "loro" e "loro" farebbero bene. Allo stessomodo,  l'uso della parola francese "repertorio" in cui l'inglese "repertorio" farà abbastanza bene. La carenza principale è il fallimento completo (anche se molto comune) di impiegare quello che vedo come la vista di due sistemi estremamente potente e intuitiva del quadro di HOT e Searle che ho delineato sopra. Questo è particolarmente toccante nel capitolo sul significato p111 et seq. (soprattutto nelle note a piè di pagina 2-7), dove nuotiamo in acqua molto fangosa senza la struttura di vero automatizzato solo S1, proposizionale disposizionale S2, COS ecc. Si può anche ottenere una migliore vista dell'interno e dell'esterno leggendo ad esempio, Johnston o Budd (vedi le mie recensioni). Horwich però fa molti commenti incisivi. Mi è piaciuto soprattutto il suo riassunto dell'importazione della posizione anti-teorica di W su p65. Ha bisogno di dare più enfasi a 'On Certainty', recentemente oggetto di grande sforzo di Daniele Moyal- Sharrock, Coliva e altri e riassunto nei miei recenti articoli.



Horwich è di prim'ordine e il suo lavoro vale la pena. Si spera che lui (e tutti) studierà Searle e un po 'di psicologia moderna così come Hutto, Read, Hutchinson, Stern, Moyal-Sharrock, Stroll, Hacker e Baker ecc per raggiungere una vasta visione moderna del comportamento. La maggior parte dei loro documenti sono su academia.edu e philpapers.org, ma per P.M.S. Hacker vedere http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.html.

Egli dà uno dei più bei riassunti di dove una comprensione di Wittgenstein ci lascia che io abbia mai visto.

"Non ci deve essere alcun tentativo di spiegare la nostra attività linguistico/concettuale (PI 126) come nella riduzione dell'aritmetica di Frege alla logica; nessun tentativo di dargli basi epistemologiche (PI 124) come nei resoconti basati sul significato di una conoscenza a priori; nessun tentativo di caratterizzarne le forme idealizzate (PI 130) come nelle logiche del senso; nessun tentativo di riformarlo (PI 124, 132) come nella teoria degli errori di Mackie o nell'intuizione di Dummett; nessun tentativo di snellirla (PI 133) come nel racconto dell'esistenza di Quine; nessun tentativo di renderlo più coerente (PI 132) come nella risposta di Tarski ai paradossi bugiar; e nessun tentativo di renderlo più completo (PI 133) come nel sistemare le questioni di identità personale per bizzarri scenari ipotetici di 'teletrasporto'."

Infine, lasciatemi suggerire che con la prospettiva che ho incoraggiato qui, W è al centro della filosofia contemporanea e della psicologia e non è oscura, difficile o irrilevante, ma scintillante, profonda e cristallina e che permane lo è mancare una delle più grandi avventure intellettualipossibili.

Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio  in  Ludwig  Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'TalkingMonkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st  Century 4th  ed (2019)

Horwich gibt eine feine Analyse von Wittgenstein (W) und ist ein führender W-Stipendiat, aber meinerMeinung nach sind sie alle hinter einer vollen Wertschätzung zurück, wie ich in dieser Rezension und vielen anderen ausführlich erkläre. Wenn man W (und vorzugsweise auch Searle) nicht versteht, dann sehe ich nicht, wie man mehr als ein oberflächliches Verständnis von Philosophie und höherem Denken und damit von allem komplexen Verhalten (Psychologie, Soziologie, Anthropologie, Geschichte, Literatur, Gesellschaft) haben könnte. Kurz gesagt, W hat gezeigt, dass, wenn Sie gezeigt haben, wie ein Satz im Zusammenhang mit Interesse verwendet wird, es nichts mehr zu sagen gibt. Ich beginne mit ein paar bemerkenswerten Zitaten und gebe dann, was ich denke, sind die minimalen Überlegungen notwendig, um Wittgenstein zu verstehen, Philosophie und menschliches Verhalten.

Zunächst könnte man feststellen, dass es verdächtig sein sollte, "Meta" vor jedes Wort zu stellen. W bemerkte z.B., dass Metamathematik Mathematik wie jede andere ist. Die Vorstellung, dass wir aus der Philosophie austreten können (d.h. die beschreibende Psychologie des Denkens höherer Ordnung), ist selbst eine tiefe Verwirrung. Eine weitere Irritation hier (und während des akademischen Schreibens in den letzten 4 Jahrzehnten) ist der ständige umgekehrte sprachliche Sexismus von "ihrem" und "ihr" und "sie" oder "er/sie" usw., wo "sie" und "ihre" und "sie" gut machen würden. Ebenso,  wird die Verwendung des französischen Wortes "Repertoire", bei dem das englische "Repertoire" recht gut funktioniert. Der größte Mangel ist das (wenn auch sehr häufige) völlige Versäumnis, das zu verwenden, was ich als die enorm leistungsfähige und intuitive Zwei-System-Ansicht von HOT und Searles Framework betrachte, die ich oben skizziert habe. Dies ist besonders ergreifend im Kapitel über die Bedeutung p111 ff. (besonders in den Fußnoten 2-7), wo wir in sehr schlammigem Wasser ohne den Rahmen von automatisierten echten nur S1, propositional DispositionS, COS usw. schwimmen. Man kann auch einen besseren Blick auf das Innere und das Äußere bekommen, indem man z.B. Johnston oder Budd liest (siehe meine Rezensionen). Horwich macht jedoch viele einschneidende Kommentare. Besonders gefiel mir seine Zusammenfassung der Bedeutung von Wes antitheoretischer Haltung auf P65. Er muss "On Certainty" stärker in den Vordergrund stellen, das kürzlich von Daniele Moyal- Sharrock, Coliva und anderen mit viel Aufwand beworfen und in meinen jüngsten Artikeln zusammengefasst wurde.


Horwich ist erstklassig und seine Arbeit lohnt sich. Man hofft, dass er (und alle) Searle und einige moderne Psychologie sowie Hutto, Read, Hutchinson, Stern, Moyal-Sharrock, Stroll, Hacker und Baker etc. studieren werden, um eine breite moderne Sicht des Verhaltens zu erreichen. Die meisten ihrer Papiere sind auf academia.edu und philpapers.org, aber für PMS Hacker siehe http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.html.

Er gibt eine der schönsten Zusammenfassungen, wo uns ein Verständnis von Wittgenstein hinterlässt, das ich je gesehen habe.

"Es darf keinen Versuch geben, unsere sprachliche/konzeptionelle Tätigkeit (PI 126) zu erklären, wie in Freges Reduktion der Arithmetik auf logik; kein Versuch, ihr erkenntnistheoretische Grundlagen zu geben (PI 124), wie sie auf der Grundlage von Berichten über ein vormethodikes Wissen beruhen; kein Versuch, idealisierte Formen davon (PI 130) als in gewissem Sinne Logiken zu charakterisieren; kein Reformversuch (PI 124, 132) wie in Mackies Fehlertheorie oder Dummetts Intuitionismus; kein Versuch, sie zu straffen (PI 133) wie in Quines Existenzbericht; kein Versuch, es konsistenter zu machen (PI 132) wie in Tarskis Antwort auf die Lügner-Paradoxien; und kein Versuch, es vollständiger zu machen (PI 133) wie bei der Klärung von Fragen der persönlichen Identität für bizarre hypothetische 'Teleportation'-Szenarien."

Abschließend möchte ich vorschlagen, dass W mit der Perspektive, die ich hier gefördert habe, im Zentrum der zeitgenössischen Philosophie und Psychologie steht und nicht obskur, schwierig oder irrelevant ist, sondern schillernd, tiefgründig und kristallklar ist und dass es ist, eines der größten intellektuellen Abenteuer zu verpassen, das möglichist.

Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language  in  Ludwig  Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Diejenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können 'Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st  Century 4th  ed (2019)  und andere sehen.

Horwich donne une belle analyse de Wittgenstein (W) et est un érudit W de premier plan, mais à mon avis, ils sont tous en deçà d’une pleine appréciation, comme je l’explique longuement dans cet examen et beaucoup d’autres. Si l’on ne comprend pas W (et de préférence Searle aussi) alors je ne vois pas comment on pourrait avoir plus qu’une compréhension superficielle de la philosophie et de la pensée de l’ordre supérieur et donc de tout comportement complexe (psychologie, sociologie, anthropologie, histoire, littérature, société). En un mot, W a démontré que lorsque vous avez montré comment une phrase est utilisée dans le contexte d’intérêt, il n’y a rien de plus à dire. Je vais commencer par quelques citations notables, puis donner ce que je pense sont les considérations minimales nécessaires pour comprendre Wittgenstein, la philosophie et le comportement humain.
Tout d’abord, on pourrait noter que mettre "meta" en face de n’importe quel mot devrait être suspect. W a fait remarquer par exemple, que la métamathématique est mathématiques comme les autres. L’idée que nous pouvons sortir de la philosophie (c’est-à-dire la psychologie descriptive de la pensée de haut ordre) est elle-même une profonde confusion. Une autre irritation ici (et tout au long de l’écriture académique pour les 4 dernières décennies) est le sexisme linguistique inverse constant de «elle» et «la sienne» et «elle» ou «il / elle», etc, où «ils» et «leur» et «eux» ferait bien. De même, l’utilisation du mot Français «répertoire» où le «répertoire» anglais se portera plutôt bien. La lacune majeure est l’échec complet (bien que très commun) d’employer ce que je considère comme la vue extrêmement puissante et intuitive de deux systèmes de HOT et Searle cadre que j’ai décrit ci-dessus. C’est particulièrement poignant dans le chapitre sur le sens p111 et seq. (en particulier dans les notes de bas de page 2-7), où nous nageons dans l’eau très boueuse sans le cadre de l’automatisé vrai seul S1, propositionnelle dispositionnelle S2, COS etc. On peut également avoir une meilleure vue de l’intérieur et de l’extérieur en lisant par exemple, Johnston ou Budd (voir mes commentaires). Horwich fait cependant beaucoup de commentaires incisifs. J’ai particulièrement aimé son résumé de l’importation de la position anti-théorique de W sur p65. Il doit mettre davantage l’accent sur 'On Certainty', récemment l’objet de beaucoup d’efforts de Daniele Moyal- Sharrock, Coliva et d’autres et résumé dans mes récents articles.
Horwich est de premier ordre et son travail vaut bien l’effort. On espère qu’il (et tout le monde) étudiera Searle et une certaine psychologie moderne ainsi que Hutto, Read, Hutchinson, Stern, Moyal-Sharrock, Stroll, Hacker et Baker, etc. pour atteindre une large vision moderne du comportement. La plupart de leurs papiers sont sur academia.edu et philpapers.org, mais pour PMS Hacker voir http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers.html.
Il donne l’un des plus beaux résumés de l’endroit où une compréhension de Wittgenstein nous laisse que j’ai jamais vu.
« Il ne doit y avoir aucune tentative d’expliquer notre activité linguistique/conceptuelle (PI 126) comme dans la réduction de l’arithmétique à la logique de Frege ; aucune tentative de lui donner des fondations épistémologiques (PI 124) comme dans les comptes basés sur le sens d’une connaissance a priori; aucune tentative de caractériser des formes idéalisées de celui-ci (PI 130) comme dans le sens logique; aucune tentative de réforme (PI 124, 132) comme dans la théorie de l’erreur de Mackie ou l’intuitionnisme de Dummett; aucune tentative de rationaliser (PI 133) comme dans le récit de Quine de l’existence; aucune tentative pour le rendre plus cohérent (PI 132) comme dans la réponse de Tarski aux paradoxes menteurs; et aucune tentative pour le rendre plus complet (PI 133) comme dans le règlement des questions d’identité personnelle pour des scénarios hypothétiques bizarres de « téléportation ».
Enfin, permettez-moi de suggérer qu’avec la perspective que j’ai encouragée ici, W est au centre de la philosophie et de la psychologie contemporaines et n’est pas obscure, difficile ou non pertinente, mais scintillante, profonde et limpide et que de lui manquer est de manquer l’une des plus grandes aventures intellectuelles possibles.
Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deuxemssyst peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John
Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres.

My discussion will have three parts. I’ll begin with a thesis:– roughly, that a sentence’s meaning what it does is simply its property of having a certain structure and having words with certain meanings. Then I’ll mention some of the implications of that thesis. And finally I’ll consider a few objections to it.
This last and defensive part will be the longest. For I know from bitter experience that the thesis will strike most readers as clearly wrong – even bizarre. I think that this is because it goes against a long tradition of theoretical work in semantics. It seems to me, however, that if one can loosen oneself a bit from the grip of all that tradition, the thesis can be seen to possess some quite attractive features. In the first place, it has considerable intuitive plausibility. In the second place, it is wonderfully simple. And in the third place, it enables us to slice through a number of thorny difficulties. So it’s certainly worth an airing.

Wittgenstein argues that philosophy dissolves problems.  Horwich embraces Wittgenstein’s view and, mainly implicitly, relocates some of its point in a minimalistic framework, working especially on the first part of the Philosophical Investigations.  My discussion of Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy concentrates on meaning as use – which according to Horwich inspires Wittgenstein’s view of philosophy –, on metaphilosophy itself and the final chapter on consciousness and the so-called private language argument.  The Tractatus logico-philosophicus, at 4.111 reads: “The word ‘philosophy’ must mean something whose place is above or below the natural sciences, not beside them.”  I am inclined to think that this ‘above’ more appropriately renders Wittgenstein view of philosophy than ‘metaphilosophy’, which if there is, is one particular way of continuing to do philosophy.