Skip to main content
placeholder image

Misreadings, clarifications and reminders: a reply to Hutchinson and Read

Journal Article


Abstract


  • It has been argued that my reading of the Tractatus has an Achilles’ heel.

    Its fatal flaw is that it does not adequately deal with the challenge posed

    by what Wittgenstein says in remark 6.54 (Hutchinson and Read, 2006:

    pp. 4, 9, 11). It seems that the sort of reading I propose fails to provide a

    satisfactory basis for attributing to Wittgenstein an adequate motive for

    his insisting that the Tractarian remarks must be ‘thrown away’.

    Certainly my critics hit the nail on the head in stating what I think

    Wittgenstein’s motive might have been: they write that ‘for Hutto, they

    [the so-called elucidations] are thought to be nonsense by Wittgenstein

    because they are not fact-stating’ (Hutchinson and Read, 2006: p. 9, italics in the original). For other complaints see Read (2004).

Publication Date


  • 2006

Citation


  • Hutto, D. D. (2006). Misreadings, clarifications and reminders: a reply to Hutchinson and Read. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 14 (4), 561-567.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-61249722500

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/754

Number Of Pages


  • 6

Start Page


  • 561

End Page


  • 567

Volume


  • 14

Issue


  • 4

Abstract


  • It has been argued that my reading of the Tractatus has an Achilles’ heel.

    Its fatal flaw is that it does not adequately deal with the challenge posed

    by what Wittgenstein says in remark 6.54 (Hutchinson and Read, 2006:

    pp. 4, 9, 11). It seems that the sort of reading I propose fails to provide a

    satisfactory basis for attributing to Wittgenstein an adequate motive for

    his insisting that the Tractarian remarks must be ‘thrown away’.

    Certainly my critics hit the nail on the head in stating what I think

    Wittgenstein’s motive might have been: they write that ‘for Hutto, they

    [the so-called elucidations] are thought to be nonsense by Wittgenstein

    because they are not fact-stating’ (Hutchinson and Read, 2006: p. 9, italics in the original). For other complaints see Read (2004).

Publication Date


  • 2006

Citation


  • Hutto, D. D. (2006). Misreadings, clarifications and reminders: a reply to Hutchinson and Read. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 14 (4), 561-567.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-61249722500

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/754

Number Of Pages


  • 6

Start Page


  • 561

End Page


  • 567

Volume


  • 14

Issue


  • 4