Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:06:31.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wittgenstein et les théories du jugement de Russell et de Meinong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Jimmy Plourde
Jimmy Plourde
Affiliation:
Université du Québec a Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the main challenges faced by Russell's theory of judgement was to provide a satisfactory account of judgement that was not committed to the existence of true, false, or non-existent complex entities such as Meinongian objectives. In the study of the Russell-Wittgenstein debate on that theory, scholars never considered the idea that Wittgenstein might not have followed Russell on that issue. In this article. I address that question and hold, first, that problems raised by Russell's theory of judgement find their solution in the picture theory. Then, I show that Wittgenstein hesitated for a long period of time in the Notebooks between a version of his solution which is committed to the existence of possible (non-existing) complex entities and one which is not. Finally, I argue that he did, along with Meinong, go for a committing version in the Tractatus.

Résumé

Un des principaux enjeux de la théorie du jugement de Russell consistait à élaborer une théorie qui n'engage pas à admettre des entités complexes vraies, fausses ou inexistantes tels que les objectifs meinongiens. Dans l'etude du débat entre Russell et Wittgenstein sur cette théorie, on n'a jamais sérieusement envisagé que Wittgenstein n'ait pas suivi Russell sur cette question et qu'il ait plutôt adopté une position plus proche de celle de Meinong. Dans cet article, j'aborde cette question et soutiens que Wittgenstein a trouve la solution aux problèmes posés par la théorie du jugement de Russell dans la théorie de l'image et qu'il a longuement hésite dans les Carnets entre des versions de la theorie de l'image en accord avec la position de Russell et des versions en accord avec celle de Meinong. Enfin, je soutiens qu'il a finalement tranché la question dans le Tractatus en optant pour une théorie du type de celle privilégiée par Meinong.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , Spring 2005 , pp. 249 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références bibliographique

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1959 An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Londres, Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Blackwell, K. 1981 «The Early Wittgenstein and the Middle Russell», dans Perspectives on the Philosophy of Wittgenstein (sous la dir. de N. Block), Oxford, Basil Blackwell, p. 1–30.Google Scholar
Bogen, J. 1972 Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Language : Some Aspects of Its Development, Londres et New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Candlish, S. 1996 «The Unity of the Proposition and Russell's Theories of Judgement», dans R. Monk et A. Palmer, dir., p. 103–315.Google Scholar
Frascolla, P. 2000 Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. Introduzione alia lettura, Rome, Carroci.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1964 Wittgenstein's Logical Atomism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1980 «Russell on the Nature of Logic», Synthese, vol. 45, p. 117–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J. 1985 «Russell's Multiple Relation Theory of Judgment», Philosophical Studies, vol. 47, p. 213–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J. 1985–1986 «Wittgenstein's Criticism of Russell's Theory of Judgment», Russell, no 5, p. 132–145.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1991 «Was Russell Shot or Did He Fall?», Dialogue, vol. 30, p. 549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochberg, H. 2000 «Propositions, Truth, and Belief : The Wittgenstein-Russell Dispute», Theoria, 2000, vol. 43, p. 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyder, D. 2002 The Mechanics of Meaning: Propositional Content and the Logical Space of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Berlin et New York, Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maury, A. 1977 The Concepts of Sinn and Gegenstand in Wittgenstein's Tractatus, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 29, no4.Google Scholar
Meinong, A. 1902 Über Annahmen, in Gesamtausgabe, tome IV (édité par R. Chisholm, R. Haller et R. Kindinger), Graz, Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1977.Google Scholar
Monk, R. 1996 Bert rand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, Londres, Random House.Google Scholar
Monk, R. et Palmer, A., dir. 1996 Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytical Philosophy, Bristol, Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
Mulligan, K. 1988 «Judgings : Their Parts and Counterparts», Topoi, Supplementi 2. La Scuola di Brentano, p. 117–148.Google Scholar
Mulligan, K. et Smith, B. 1986 «A Relational Theory of the Act», Topoi, vol. 5, no2, p. 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pears, D. 1977 «The Relation between Wittgenstein's Picture Theory of Propositions and Russell's Theories of Judgment», Philosophical Review, vol. 86, p. 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pears, D. 1979 «Wittgenstein's Picture Theory and Russell's Theory of Knowledge», dans Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle and Critical Rationalism : Proceedings of the Third International Wittgenstein Symposium (sous la dir. de H. Berghel, A. Hübner et E. Köhler). Vienne, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, p. 101–107.Google Scholar
Pears, D. 1987 The False Prison : A Study of the Development of Wittgenstein's Philosophy, vol. 1, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pears, D. 1989 «Russell's 1913 Theory of Knowledge Manuscript», dans Rereading Russell: Essays in Bertrand Russell's Metaphysics and Epistemology, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. XII (sous la dir. de C. W. Savage et C. A. Anderson), Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press, p. 169–182.Google Scholar
Plourde, J. 2004 Nécessité, possibilité et impossibilité dans le Tractatus logicophilosophicus. Essai d'une reconstruction de la théorie wittgensteinienne des modalités, thèse de doctorat, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Ramsden Eames, E. 1984 «Introduction», dans Russell, 1984, p. V–XLIX.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1904 «Meinong's Theory of Complexes and Assumption», dans The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, vol. 4, p. 431–474.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1906–1908 «The Nature of Truth», dans Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 7, p. 28–49.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1910 «On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood», dans Philosophical Essays, Londres, Routledge, 1994, p. 147–159.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1912a «What Is Logic», dans The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell. Logical and Philosophical Papers 1909–13, vol. 6 (édit– par J. G. Slater), Londres et New York, Routledge, 1992, p. 54–56.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1912b The Problems of Philosophy, Mineola, Dover, 1999.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1918 «The Philosophy of Logical Atomism», dans Logic and Knowledge (édité par C. Marsh), Londres, Routledge, 1994, p. 177–281.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1968 The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, vol. II, Londres. Routledge, 1991.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1984 The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell: Theory of Knowledge. The 1913 Manuscript, vol. 7 (édité par E. Ramsden Eames et K. Blackwell), Londres, Allen & Unwin, 1984. Trad. Franç. : Théorie de la connaissance. Le Manuscrit de 1913 (trad, par J.-M. Roy), Paris, Vrin, 2002.Google Scholar
Simons, P. M. 1992 «The Old Problem of Complex and Fact», dans Philosophy and Logic in Central Europe from Bolzano to Tarski. Selected Essays, Dor-drecht, Kluwer, p. 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerville, S. 1980 «Wittgenstein to Russell (July 1913): “I am very sorry to hear […] my objection paralyses you”», dans Language, Logic and Philosophy. Proceedings of the 4th International Wittgenstein Symposium (sous la dir. de R. Haller et W. Grassl), Vienne, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, p. 182–188.Google Scholar
Stock, G. 1972–1973 «Wittgenstein on Russell's Theory of Judgment», dans Understanding Wittgenstein, Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures, vol. 7, Londres, Macmillan, p. 62–75.Google Scholar
Tully, R. E. 1988 «Forgotten Vintage», Dialogue, vol. 27, p. 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1922 Logisch-philosophische AbhandlunglTractatus logico-philosophicus (édition critique par B. McGuiness et J. Schulte), Francfort, Suhrkamp, 1998 (1922) (TLP). Trad, franç. : Tractatus logicophilosophicus (trad, par G.-G. Granger), Paris, Gallimard, 1993.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1979 Notebooks, 1914–1916 (édité par G. H. von Wright et G. E. M. Anscombe, trad. ang. de G. E. M. Anscombe), 2e édition, Chicago, Chicago University Press (NB). Trad, franç. : Carnets 1914–1916 (trad, par G.-G. Granger de la lre édition), Paris, Gallimard, 1971 (Carnets).Google Scholar
Wright, G. H. von 1982 «Modal Logic and the Tractatus», dans Wittgenstein, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, p. 183–200.Google Scholar