Wittgenstein's Critique of Moore in On Certainty

Q2 Arts and Humanities Nordic Wittgenstein Review Pub Date : 2018-01-25 DOI:10.15845/NWR.V6I2.3440
E. Owesen
{"title":"Wittgenstein's Critique of Moore in On Certainty","authors":"E. Owesen","doi":"10.15845/NWR.V6I2.3440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper clarifies Wittgenstein’s critique of Moore in On Certainty, and argues that this critique is largely misunderstood, for two reasons. Firstly, Wittgenstein partly misrepresents Moore. Secondly, Wittgenstein is wrongly taken to be an (access-) internalist regarding justification for knowledge. Once we realize these two points, we can understand Wittgenstein’s critique properly as a grammatical argument in that Moore fails to see how the concepts of knowledge and certainty relate to those of justification and evidence. On this reading, we can also understand that Moore and Wittgenstein were in more agreement than many people have thought, even though Moore was not able to exploit and express his philosophical insights (which he shares with Wittgenstein) properly.","PeriodicalId":31828,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Wittgenstein Review","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-25","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.V6I2.3440","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

This paper clarifies Wittgenstein’s critique of Moore in On Certainty, and argues that this critique is largely misunderstood, for two reasons. Firstly, Wittgenstein partly misrepresents Moore. Secondly, Wittgenstein is wrongly taken to be an (access-) internalist regarding justification for knowledge. Once we realize these two points, we can understand Wittgenstein’s critique properly as a grammatical argument in that Moore fails to see how the concepts of knowledge and certainty relate to those of justification and evidence. On this reading, we can also understand that Moore and Wittgenstein were in more agreement than many people have thought, even though Moore was not able to exploit and express his philosophical insights (which he shares with Wittgenstein) properly.
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
《论确定性》中维特根斯坦对摩尔的批判
本文澄清了维特根斯坦在《论确定性》中对摩尔的批评,并认为这种批评在很大程度上被误解了,原因有两个。首先,维特根斯坦在一定程度上歪曲了摩尔。其次,维特根斯坦在知识的正当性问题上被错误地认为是一个(接近的)内在主义者。一旦我们认识到这两点,我们就可以把维特根斯坦的批判正确地理解为一个语法论点,因为摩尔没有看到知识和确定性的概念是如何与证明和证据的概念联系起来的。通过阅读,我们也可以理解,摩尔和维特根斯坦的共识比许多人想象的要多,尽管摩尔无法恰当地利用和表达他的哲学见解(他与维特根斯坦共享哲学见解)。
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:604180095
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