{"title":"A Response to Dehnel's ‘Defending Wittgenstein’","authors":"Samuel J. Wheeler","doi":"10.1111/phin.12413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a reply to ‘Defending Wittgenstein’, Piotr Dehnel's critique of my article, ‘Defending Wittgenstein's Remarks on Cantor from Putnam’. I first show that my position is much more in agreement with Felix Mühlhölzer than Dehnel takes it to be, and that his criticism of me is nothing more than a failure to recognize this. I then show how Dehnel incorrectly reads Wittgenstein as rejecting set theory as false. It is an overemphasis on and a much too narrow picture of ‘applicability’ which leads him to this view. Finally, I conclude by rejecting Dehnel's view that Wittgenstein was a finitist about mathematics.","PeriodicalId":47112,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS","volume":"134 13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12413","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This is a reply to ‘Defending Wittgenstein’, Piotr Dehnel's critique of my article, ‘Defending Wittgenstein's Remarks on Cantor from Putnam’. I first show that my position is much more in agreement with Felix Mühlhölzer than Dehnel takes it to be, and that his criticism of me is nothing more than a failure to recognize this. I then show how Dehnel incorrectly reads Wittgenstein as rejecting set theory as false. It is an overemphasis on and a much too narrow picture of ‘applicability’ which leads him to this view. Finally, I conclude by rejecting Dehnel's view that Wittgenstein was a finitist about mathematics.
这是对皮奥特-德内尔（Piotr Dehnel）对我的文章《从普特南那里捍卫维特根斯坦关于康托的评论》（Defending Wittgenstein's Remarks on Cantor from Putnam）的评论《捍卫维特根斯坦》（Defending Wittgenstein）的答复。我首先说明，我的立场与德内尔所认为的费利克斯-米尔霍尔泽（Felix Mühlhölzer）的立场更为一致，而他对我的批评只不过是没有认识到这一点而已。然后，我将说明德内尔是如何错误地将维特根斯坦解读为否定集合论是错误的。正是对 "适用性 "的过分强调和过于狭隘的理解导致了他的这种观点。最后，我反对德内尔关于维特根斯坦是数学有限论者的观点。
期刊介绍：
Philosophical Investigations features articles in every branch of philosophy. Whether focusing on traditional or on new aspects of the subject, it offers thought-provoking articles and maintains a lively readership with an acclaimed discussion section and wide-ranging book reviews. Special issues are published on topics of current philosophical interest.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
