Si sente spesso parlare di due diversi Wittgenstein, corrispondenti ai due capolavori del filosofo austriaco: il Tractatus e le Ricerche. Il presente saggio mette in questione tale netta distinzione – e qualsiasi altra – mostrando come il pensiero di Wittgenstein sia in una costante e graduale transizione. La tesi principale è che soffermarsi retrospettivamente sulla fluidità di questa transizione, esaminandone i passaggi fondamentali, può essere più illuminante che isolare assunti teorici utili a “contare i Wittgenstein”. In particolare, dopo una (...) discussione di alcune idee del Tractatus, l’articolo si soffermerà sulla transizione dai concetti di proposizione elementare e sintassi logica a quelli di sistema proposizionale e grammatica, mostrando come, attraverso un costante ripensamento del concetto di forma, Wittgenstein giunga a identificare il significato delle parole col loro uso effettivo nei nostri giochi linguistici. (shrink)

This study aims to propose a rational reconstruction of the theory-core ofWittgenstein's Tractatus, in order to bring into prominence its theoreticaland philosophical sources, its epistemological nature and metaphysical significance.The main idea of my approach is that when we take due account of the scientific andphilosophical context of the Tractatus, we see that its central philosophicalinnovation is a new form of metaphysics, namely a structural theory of representation.``I am not interested in constructing a building,so much as in having a (...) perspicuous view of the foundation of possible buildings.''. (shrink)

Wittgenstein’s early philosophy of language is shaped by his attention to Parmenides’ paradox of false propositions and the problem of the unity of the proposition. Wittgenstein (dis)solves these two (pseudo)problems through his discussion of the “internal pictorial relation” between propositions and states of affairs, which is an artifact of language and the world being “constructed according to a common logical pattern” (TLP 4.014). After examining these issues, I argue that this treatment points to a further problem, namely, the question of (...) the agency responsible for this construction, and in the paper I briefly explore this byconsidering a parallel set of problems as they arise for Kant. For Kant, the question is what guarantees that nature conforms to our concepts and their logic, which he answers through his account of the normative authority we exercise in our cognitive activities. Wittgenstein, I argue, faces a parallel question, which he fails to face in his early work, and only begins to address in his later work on rule-following. (shrink)

Volume 2, Issue 3, September 2018, Page 343-354.