On Wittgenstein, Radical Pluralism, and Radical Relativity

Q2 Arts and Humanities Nordic Wittgenstein Review Pub Date : 2019-03-14 DOI:10.15845/NWR.V8I1.3461
Randy Ramal
{"title":"On Wittgenstein, Radical Pluralism, and Radical Relativity","authors":"Randy Ramal","doi":"10.15845/NWR.V8I1.3461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I introduce the idea of ‘radical relativity’ to elucidate an undervalued justificatory context for Wittgenstein’s affirmation of radical pluralism. I accept D.Z. Phillips’s definition of radical pluralism as the view that certain radical differences between people’s ordinary practices prevent the latter from being reduced to a necessary set of common interests, meanings, or truths. I argue that radical relativity provides this form of pluralism with the logical justification it requires in that it accounts for how pluralism became radical. More specifically, I argue that the contingent, non-causal, and yet non-arbitrary relation between ordinary concepts and the pluralistic world through which they emerge explains the reality of radical pluralism. Radical relativity is suggested in Wittgenstein’s three notions of ‘concept formation’, ‘agreement in reaction’, and ‘world pictures’, I argue, without endorsing traditional forms of relativism. Finally, I show that although D.Z. Phillips and Hilary Putnam promote notions of pluralism indebted to Wittgenstein, neither philosopher utilizes the radical relativity suggested in his work to justify his respective version of pluralism or Wittgenstein’s version of radical pluralism.","PeriodicalId":31828,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Wittgenstein Review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Wittgenstein Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15845/NWR.V8I1.3461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, I introduce the idea of ‘radical relativity’ to elucidate an undervalued justificatory context for Wittgenstein’s affirmation of radical pluralism. I accept D.Z. Phillips’s definition of radical pluralism as the view that certain radical differences between people’s ordinary practices prevent the latter from being reduced to a necessary set of common interests, meanings, or truths. I argue that radical relativity provides this form of pluralism with the logical justification it requires in that it accounts for how pluralism became radical. More specifically, I argue that the contingent, non-causal, and yet non-arbitrary relation between ordinary concepts and the pluralistic world through which they emerge explains the reality of radical pluralism. Radical relativity is suggested in Wittgenstein’s three notions of ‘concept formation’, ‘agreement in reaction’, and ‘world pictures’, I argue, without endorsing traditional forms of relativism. Finally, I show that although D.Z. Phillips and Hilary Putnam promote notions of pluralism indebted to Wittgenstein, neither philosopher utilizes the radical relativity suggested in his work to justify his respective version of pluralism or Wittgenstein’s version of radical pluralism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论维特根斯坦、激进多元主义与激进相对论
在本文中,我引入了“激进相对论”的概念,以阐明维特根斯坦对激进多元主义的肯定被低估的正当性背景。我接受D.Z.菲利普斯对激进多元主义的定义,认为人们日常实践之间的某些根本差异阻止了后者被简化为一套必要的共同利益、意义或真理。我认为,激进相对论为这种形式的多元主义提供了它所需要的逻辑论证,因为它解释了多元主义是如何变得激进的。更具体地说,我认为普通概念与它们所产生的多元世界之间偶然的、非因果的、但又非任意的关系解释了激进多元主义的现实。我认为,维特根斯坦的“概念形成”、“反应一致”和“世界图景”这三个概念提出了激进相对论,但它并不赞同传统形式的相对论。最后,我指出,虽然D.Z.菲利普斯和希拉里·普特南推崇维特根斯坦的多元主义概念,但两位哲学家都没有利用他们著作中提出的激进相对论来证明他们各自的多元主义版本或维特根斯坦的激进多元主义版本的正确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nordic Wittgenstein Review
Nordic Wittgenstein Review Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cavell’s Must We Mean What We Say? at 50 , edited by Greg Chase, Juliet Floyd and Sandra Laugier Wittgenstein and Aesthetics, by Hanne Appelqvist Wittgenstein in Alethea Graham’s diary (1929-1930), and new data on the audience of his Lecture on Ethics and LT 1930 class Ethical Inquiries after Wittgenstein, edited by Salla Aldrin Salskov, Ondřej Beran and Nora Hämäläinen “What Line Can’t Be Measured With a Ruler?”: Riddles and Concept-Formation in Mathematics and Aesthetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1