Wittgenstein's solution to the problem of the "concept horse", or how to talk about the structure of the language according to the Tractatus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17230/co-herencia.15.29.6Keywords:
Concept horse, formal concept, Tractatus, logical concepts.Abstract
This article asserts that the distinction made by Wittgenstein in the Tractatus between ‘ordinary concepts’ and ‘formal concepts’ may be construed as a response to the difficulties arising from the Fregean distinction between concept and object, which are traditionally referred to as the ‘concept horse problem’. The paper will show that contradictory and paradoxical expressions that arise both from the attack to the Fregean distinction (e.g., the concept horse is an object) and from its defense (e.g., the concept horse is not a concept), are rooted in an illegitimate attempt, namely, to describe or characterize the logical structure of the proposition by using other propositions. The distinction between ordinary and formal concepts makes it possible to clarify, first, in what sense these expressions are nonsensical; and second, that the distinction between concept and object can only be recognized in symbolism by the characteristics of signs, but it cannot be the object of description.
References
Blank, A. (2007). Material Points and Formal Concepts in the Early Wittgenstein. Canadian Journal Of Philosophy, 37(2), 245-262. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2yh9y3Z
Dean, K. (2007). The Concept “Horse” Paradox and Wittgensteinian Conceptual Investigations: A Prolegomenon to Philosophical Investigations. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Engelmann, M. (2013). Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Development: Phenomenology, Grammar, Method, and the Anthropological View. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Frege, G. (1972 [1879]). Conceptografía (Begriffsschritt, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinenDenkens, H. Padilla, Trad.). México: Universidad Autónoma de México.
Frege, G. (1974 [1892]). Escritos lógico semánticos (C. R. Luis y C. Pereda, Tr a d s .). M a d r i d: Té c n o s .
Hamlyn, D. (1959). Categories, Formal Concepts and Metaphysics. Philosophy, 34(129), 111-124. doi: htt ps://doi.org/10.1017/S0 03181910 0 047458
Hacker, P. (2001). Wittgenstein: Connections and Controversies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ishiguro, H. (1969). Use and Reference of Names. In P. Winch (Ed.), Studies in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein (pp. 20-50). London: Routledge.
Kenny, A. (1995). Frege: An Introduction to the Founder of Modern Analytic Philosophy. London: Blackwell Publishers
Kienzler, W. (2011). Reading the Tractatus from the Beginning: How to say everything clearly in three words (Jena, 2008, slightly revised version July 2011). Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2lf7dxm
Koethe, J. (1996). The continuity of Wittgenstein’s thought. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kuusela, O. (2012). Carnap and the Tr a c t a t u s’ philosophy of logic. Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 1(3), 1-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.4148/jhap.v1i3.1334
Kuusela, O. (2014). The Method of Language-Games as a Method of Logic. Philosophical Topics, 42(2), 129-160. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2yhaJ3u
Linsky, L. (1992). The Unity of the Proposition. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 30(2), 243-273. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2LZ1zeb
McGinn, M. (2001). Saying and Showing and the Continuity of Wittgenstein’s Thought. The Harvard Review of Philosophy, (ix), 24-36. Recuperado de https://bit.ly/2JTX8Aq
McGinn, M. (2006). Elucidating the Tractatus: Wittgenstein’s Early Philosophy of Logic and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGinn, M. (2009). Wittgenstein and internal relations. European Journal of Philosophy, 18, 495-509. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.20 09.0 0359.x
Mota, S. (2015). Wittgenstein en torno a los conceptos. Análisis. Revista de Investigación filosófica, 2, 195-219. doi: https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_a r i f/a.r i f.201511119
Mota, S. (2018). ¿Son los conceptos formales (o lógicos) categorías ontológicas? Tópicos. Revista de Filosofía, 54, 301-331. doi: http://dx.doi.org /10.21555/top.v0i54.905
Phillips, D. (2007). Complete analysis and clarificatory analysis in Wittgenstein’s Tr a c t a t u s. In M. Beaney (Ed.), The Analytic Turn, Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology (pp. 164-177). New York: Routledge.
Russell, B. (2010 [1903]). Principles of Mathematics. London: Routledge Clasics.
Wittgenstein, L. (1979). Cartas a Russell, Keynes y Moore. Madrid: Taurus.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Diarios secretos. Madrid: Alianza.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009 [1922]). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (J. Muñoz Veiga e I. Reguera Pérez, Trads.). Madrid: Gredos.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Avisos:
- No tiene que cumplir con la licencia para elementos del material de dominio público o cuando su uso esté permitido por una excepción o limitación aplicable .
- No se dan garantías. Es posible que la licencia no le otorgue todos los permisos necesarios para el uso previsto. Por ejemplo, otros derechos como la publicidad, la privacidad o los derechos morales pueden limitar la forma en que utiliza el material.
Revista de la Escuela de Artes y Humanidades, Universidad EAFIT.
