What does it take to climb the ladder? (A sideways approach)
| dc.creator | Mauro Luiz Engelmann | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-04-10T12:37:46Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-09-09T00:36:31Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-04-10T12:37:46Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
| dc.description.abstract | O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar que as interpretações "tradicional" e "resoluta" não livraram o "Tractatus" da aparente autoderrota paradoxal. Argumento que essas leituras apresentam apenas uma nova roupagem ao paradoxo. A leitura "tradicional" de Hacker acaba atribuindo uma conspiração metafísica ao "Tractatus", o que é incompatível com os objetivos do livro. A leitura "resoluta" de Diamond e Conant atribui a Wittgenstein uma conspiração autoral, o que contradiz suas opiniões sobre autoria e método. Com base nas dificuldades encontradas em ambos os lados do debate atual, concluo este artigo propondo vários requisitos que a correta interpretação do "Tractatus" deve preencher. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-512X2018n14013mle | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1981-5336 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1843/51739 | |
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.publisher | Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Kriterion: Revista de Filosofia | |
| dc.rights | Acesso Aberto | |
| dc.subject | Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889-1951 Tractatus logico-philosophicus | |
| dc.subject | Paradoxos | |
| dc.subject | Kierkegaard, Soren, 1813-1855 | |
| dc.subject.other | Wittgenstein | |
| dc.subject.other | Tractatus | |
| dc.subject.other | Resolute reading | |
| dc.subject.other | Paradox | |
| dc.subject.other | Kierkegaard | |
| dc.title | What does it take to climb the ladder? (A sideways approach) | |
| dc.type | Artigo de periódico | |
| local.citation.epage | 611 | |
| local.citation.issue | 140 | |
| local.citation.spage | 591 | |
| local.citation.volume | 59 | |
| local.description.resumo | The aim of this paper is to show that "traditional" and "resolute" interpretations have not freed the "Tractatus" from the apparent paradoxical self-defeat. I argue that these readings only give it new clothing. Hacker's "traditional" reading ends up ascribing a metaphysical conspiracy to the "Tractatus", which is incompatible with the aims of the book. The "resolute" reading of Diamond and Conant ascribes an authorial conspiracy to Wittgenstein, which contradicts his views on authorship and method. Grounded in the difficulties found in both sides of the current debate, I conclude this paper by proposing several requirements that the correct interpretation of the "Tractatus" should fulfill. | |
| local.identifier.orcid | https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0392-325X | |
| local.publisher.country | Brasil | |
| local.publisher.department | FAF - DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOSOFIA | |
| local.publisher.initials | UFMG | |
| local.url.externa | https://www.scielo.br/j/kr/a/FXmjQwdrWzNyhMBtp5yFttL/abstract/?lang=en |