Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Signs of Sense
Reading Wittgensteins Tractatus
Eli Friedlander
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England
2001
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
This book is dedicated to the memory of Burton Dreben. He accompanied my attempts to read the Tractatus from the very rst stumbling
steps to make sense of what professes to be nonsense to the last formulations. We met countless times, and his sharp criticism, his inspiring insights, his kindness and unfailing encouragement fostered much of what
is good in this book.
Stanley Cavell taught me the terms in which to address the task of
writing and reading philosophy. His generosity, his responsiveness, and
the example he sets through his writings and teaching provided both inspiration and orientation. In this work I have found myself returning to
his writings and discovering how indebted I am to his thinking. I hope
that he recognizes in my reading of the Tractatus something of a response to his vision of Wittgensteins later philosophy. Burton Dreben
and Stanley Cavell are for me exemplary teachers of philosophy, the one
dedicated to reveal what drives you by demonstrating that you have
failed to mean what you said, the other showing you that there is always
more meaning to recognize in what you say. I think of the inner dialogue
between their voices as generating the productive tension that drives
this work forward.
During my stay at Harvard, when this writing project began, I had
the benet of thought-provoking philosophical exchanges with Steven
Affeldt, James Conant, Juliet Floyd, Paul Franks, and Arata Hamawaki.
As I moved to Tel-Aviv, more friends joined the conversation, among
them Hagi Kenaan, Yaron Senderowich, Michael Roubach, Ofra Rechter,
and Dror Doln. I particularly want to thank Irad Kimhi for many inspiring conversations over the past few years, conversations which have
had a great impact on my thinking. Dror Dolns generous friendship
and invaluable assistance helped me through many difcult moments.
Lindsay Waterss friendly support in the last stages of writing and rewrit-
viii
Acknowledgments
Contents
Abbreviations
Preface
Introduction: Figures of Writing
xi
xiii
1
PART ONE
1
Logic Apart
21
34
47
61
71
88
103
112
Ethics in Language
123
A Demanding Silence
145
10
PART TWO
11
161
12
210
Works Cited
219
Index
225
Abbreviations
Culture and Value, 2nd ed., G. H. von Wright, ed., P. Winch, trans.
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1980).
LE
LLW
LO
LRKM
NB
PI
PT
SRLF
TLP
WVC
xi
Preface
Preface
Preface
While working on this book I have often asked myself whether there is
room for a reinterpretation of Wittgensteins Tractatus Logico-Philosophicusfor surely the signicance of this classic work has long been exhausted. Moreover, if my main purpose is to dispute previous readings
of specic topics, what is the point of writing yet another complete interpretation of the whole work? The answer I always gave myself in the
wake of such doubts was that, despite all that has been written, a fundamental difculty still remains in assimilating the Tractatus. Many signicant philosophical works contain obscure, enigmatic, or difcult
passages. Yet we mostly agree, for example, on what Kants fundamental
framework, method, and aim are. The same cannot be said about Wittgensteins Tractatus. The fundamental interpretative disagreements that
abound in the secondary literature are themselves indicative of the problematic nature of the text. It is the very nature and extent of such disagreements that justies asking once more what Wittgensteins purpose
was in the Tractatus.
My book closely follows the movement of Wittgensteins text: it is a
commentary of sorts, and as such is rather restricted in scope and aim.
But at the same time it is ambitious in aiming at a different view of a
work that has been the concern of so many interpreters. My sense that
the movement of the Tractatus as a whole, its impetus, can be missed
constitutes the immediate justication of my writing. The conviction
that the different parts of the Tractatus should be read as constantly serving an overall aim, rather than merely as discrete sets of topics, determined the direction of my interpretation, as well as a certain task of writing and the form my writing took. It is the source of whatever merits and
shortcomings the nal product may have. This does not mean that I will
not attempt a different reading of the various specic issues raised. Indeed, showing what I take to be the movement of the book as a whole rexiii
xiv
Preface
Preface
xv
the preface of the book: Perhaps this book will be understood only by
someone who has himself already had the thoughts that are expressed in
itor at least similar thoughts.4 This way of thematizing the problem
of our approach to the Tractatus makes the difculty intrinsic to that
text. It turns it, one might say, into an esoteric text. Thus the claim that
there is an intrinsic difculty of understanding this book points neither
to a psychological problem of Wittgensteins nor to the shortcomings of
any of the readers who have approached that text. Rather, it is something
in the book as a whole, that is, in philosophy itself as Wittgenstein sees
it, that creates such a problem of approach. The difculty is due neither
to Wittgensteins supposed obscurity or laconic way of putting various
points nor to the lack of examples or aids to the reader. The book itself is
written in such a way as to present something of an enigma. To read it
with understanding is to address its enigmatic nature in a fruitful way.
This perception of the nature of the work provided me with a direction of interpretation. The point was not to attempt, with cunning, to
solve the works riddle, but rather to present its enigmatic character in a
truly thought-provoking way. A thoughtful acceptance of this enigmatic
character meant that it had to be viewed as integral to the progress of the
text. The enigmatic tone that colors the opening of the preface crystallizes in the nal gesture of throwing away the ladder, with the authors
claim that a proper understanding demands that his propositions be recognized as nonsensical. But in most readings of the book there is a signicant gap between the progress of the text and the philosophers nal
revocation of all that has been said. The end, one might say, comes to the
reader as a shocking, unassimilable surprise after the seemingly continuous progress of the text. An interpretation that takes this moment seriously must lead to it, provide an understanding of its necessity, or work
through the text to this end point; it must think of the book as a whole.
I have worked on the Tractatus in various ways at different times. Anyone who has seriously approached that text knows of the frustration
involved in reading it. No doubt frustrations arise with many great philosophical texts, but the form of these difculties varies from one philosopher to another. When reading a text such as the Tractatus, it is particularly vital to be attentive to the form of these difculties and to take ones
reactions as guidelines to understanding the text. Insofar as the Tractatus
4. L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness, trans.,
p. 3. Henceforth all references to the Tractatus will be to this edition (unless otherwise specied) by reference to the proposition number immediately following the quote.
xvi
Preface
is not geared toward any manifest content, one should think through the
gaps as they appear in the frustrations and blockages of reading it.
On several occasions I have gone from a sense of the texts opaqueness, of disappointment with its promises and seductiveness, of feeling
that nothing speaks in it, to a sudden insight into its signicance as a
whole. This pace of understanding and this peculiar mode of clarity intrigued me. It seemed to say more about the works structure than about
my interpretative skills. This all or nothing experience seemed to turn
the Tractatus itself into a world in which one could either feel entirely
lost or alternatively move freely from one part to the other. This reinforced my conviction that the Tractatus should always be read as a
whole, and that our relation to the text should be seen as exemplifying
something of our relation to the world. In attempting such an interpretation I hope I have not forced the text against its natural inclination.
Whether I have been successful in doing what this conception of philosophical work demands is something that the reader will have to judge
for himself.
The difculty of reading such a work also raises questions as to what
it means to write about it. Wittgenstein writes in the preface about the
difculty he has in expressing his fundamental insights: Here I am conscious of having fallen a long way short of what is possible. Simply because my powers are too slight for the accomplishment of the task.
May others come and do it better. I take this remark as suggesting a direction for reading the text fruitfully: namely, what is required is a certain balance between diligently following the text and the need to try to
express differently what the explicit part of Wittgenstein s text only half
says. Not that I claim that my interpretation expresses better than Wittgenstein what the Tractatus is about, but I do think that a proper conception of the nature of the difculty of expression requires from a good
reader something like the act of rewriting that I attempt. The Tractatus
does not ultimately aim at communicating some content that one can
grasp and circulate. Its insights must be rediscovered, or recovered from
ones own standpoint. (Perhaps this book will be understood only by
someone who has himself already had the thoughts that are expressed in
itor at least similar thoughts.) The ultimate aim of such a commentary must be the reopening of the space in which Wittgensteins speech
can be heard, or can resound, as forcefully as possible. This work of
Preface
xvii
xviii
Preface
Preface
xix
xx
Preface
will have a distinctly different tone. Since I have learned much on how
to read these topics of the Tractatus from reading Heidegger, I nd it
fruitful to make Wittgensteins pronouncements resonate with what one
might think of as Heideggerian formulations.
Signs of Sense
Introduction
Introduction
Figures of Writing
Signs of Sense
cal form can be shown but not said and squarely rejecting the ethical or
mystical implications of the work.
It was Wittgenstein who rst exhibited the close connection between
the logic of science (or philosophy as he calls it) and syntax . . . Further he as shown that the so-called sentences of metaphysics and of
ethics are pseudo-sentences . . . If I am right, the position here maintained is in general agreement with his . . . There are two points especially on which the view here presented differs from that of Wittgenstein, and specically from his negative theses. The rst of these theses
states . . . [that] there are no sentences about the forms of sentences;
there is no expressible syntax. In opposition to this view, our construction of syntax has shown that it can be correctly formulated and that
syntactical sentences do exist . . . Wittgensteins second negative thesis
states that the logic of science (philosophy) cannot be formulated . . .
Consistently Wittgenstein applies this view to his own work also . . .
Such an interpretation of logic is certainly very unsatisfactory.1
This divisive treatment of the work is not restricted to one kind of philosophical sensibility. From the opposite corner of the philosophical landscape, Wittgensteins friend Paul Engelmann has a somewhat similar reaction:
a whole generation of disciples was able to take Wittgenstein for a
positivist because he had something of enormous importance in common with the positivists: he draws the line between what we can speak
about and what we must be silent about just as they do. The difference
is only that they have nothing to be silent about. Positivism holds
and this is its essencethat what we can speak about is all that really
matters in life. Whereas Wittgenstein passionately believes that all that
really matters in human life is precisely what, in his view, we must be
silent about. When he nevertheless takes immense pain to delimit the
unimportant, it is not the coastline of that island which he is bent on
surveying with such meticulous accuracy but the boundary of the
ocean.2
Introduction
Signs of Sense
domain. Ethics would then be identied with the domain of the unsayable, whose contours are determined by the negative space that the
Tractatus leaves open. After all, the Tractatus, at least in its manifest content, is indeed concerned with logic, and Wittgenstein himself seems to
hold that ethics cannot be said.
This easy solution, which relies so heavily on the geographical trope
of two adjacent domains (as Engelmanns gure of land and ocean suggests), is unsatisfactory. Ethics, after all, cannot be the other side of
logic, that which is not logic, since negation itself belongs to the realm of
logic: hence both the content to be negated and the result of the negation belong to the same domain. Moreover, delimiting the logical in that
way might leave room for the ethical, but it in no way provides its internal articulation. It would present us at most with the external contours
of a domain, its borders. But the Tractatus is not a prolegomenon to a domain of ethics. It is a work with an ethical point, which is inseparable
from its work of delimiting the logical.
Moreover, it does not seem all that natural to assume without further
ado that logic merely delimits the ethical. Why are we not in the least
tempted to say that Russell and Whiteheads Principia Mathematica or
Freges Begriffsschrift delimit the ethical negatively? Would it be possible
to perceive the Tractatus as a work with an ethical point without Wittgensteins remarks to this effect, and if so, what is the nature of the difference between these two ways of elaborating logic and its limits?
In my approach to the text I will assume that only by discarding the
gure of adjacent domains can the reader grasp the meaning of the
Tractatus: that everything happens at the limits, in the work of delimitation. This means that the task of delineating the logical is as problematic
as that of opening ourselves to the ethical. There is not one domain,
logic, in which everything is quite straightforward and open, and another, ethics, that is essentially obscure. Work at the limits bears equally
on both the ethical and the logical. This perception suggests that the
main issue is to explain why drawing the limits of language as such reveals the inner relation of the ethical and the logical. Wittgensteins philosophy, far from separating these into distinct domains, brings out their
essential afnity.4
These disciplinary or territorial considerations are naturally con4. This intuition runs counter to P. M. S. Hackers interpretation: It is common to view the
Tractatus as a completely and wholly integrated work, and hence to think that the so-called
mystical parts of the book are a culmination of the work reecting back on everything that
Introduction
nected with the difculties presented by the relation between the form
of the Tractatus and its content. From that perspective, the singularity of
the work lies in its declining to provide the kind of continuous reading that encompasses the content and the conditions of content. The
Tractatus can be read either from its beginning or from its end. At the
end, Wittgenstein casts doubt on the beginning and distinguishes the
content from the point of the book. He notoriously writes:
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone
who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when
he has used themas stepsto climb up beyond them. (He must, so
to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the
world aright. (6.54)
Signs of Sense
see such a grand gesture as empty at best. Indeed, why should Wittgenstein write such a complex treatise on logic only to throw it away dramatically at the end? They tend to dilute the remark about throwing
away the ladder, to avoid its radical consequences, by arguing that our
understanding at the end is still related to what was set forth in the book.
They would argue that although strictly speaking the book might be
nonsense, it nonetheless manages to convey a view of logic and the
world which, on its own terms, cannot be stated.5
The rst kind of reading suffers from all the defects of an overhasty
identication with Wittgensteins voice. In particular, the reluctance to
be fooled, by divining the point of Wittgensteins work in advance,
might give the reader a false sense of mastery which in fact does not contain the truth of the text. The text requires work in order for its truth to
be made manifest, or for the discrepancy between illusory mastery and
the assumption of subjectivity to be acknowledged. The second kind of
readers inevitably will see the fruits of their work snatched away at the
crucial moment, and satisfaction withheld permanently. They will treat
the Tractatus, despite Wittgensteins warning, as a textbook, and thus
will not derive any pleasure from reading it. (For, indeed, there is a peculiar kind of pleasure to be had in relating to the end of the book in the
proper way.) Here too, the books purpose will not have been fullled.
The oddness of the book might merely be dismissed as a matter of
style, which would be to dismiss the philosophical importance of presentation as such.6 The literary dimension of the Tractatus, the peculiar
5. Cora Diamond as well as James Conant have convincingly shown the difculty of holding to the content of the Tractatus despite the injunction to throw away the ladder. See C. Diamond, Throwing Away the Ladder, in The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy and the
Mind; J. Conant, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard and Nonsense, in T. Cohen, P. Guyer, and H.
Putnam, eds., Pursuits of Reason, pp. 195224.
6. An excellent example, just because it self-consciously dismisses the peculiarities of Wittgensteins writing, is E. Anscombes An Introduction to Wittgensteins Tractatus: In his introduction Wittgenstein suggests that he may be understood only by people who have had the same
thoughts as he; certainly he can only be understood by people who have been perplexed by the same
problems. His own writing is extraordinarily compressed, and it is necessary to ponder each
word in order to understand his sentences. When one does this, they often turn out to be quite
straightforward, and by no means so oracular or aphoristic as they have been taken to be. But
few authors make such demands on the close attention and active co-operation of their readers.
In my account, I have not followed the arrangement of the Tractatus at all. That, I think, is
something to do when one reads the book for enjoyment after one has come to understand its main
Introduction
style of the work, is usually viewed as an expression of the singular personality of the author. Although no direct attempt is made to explain the
content of the book in terms of Wittgensteins biography, interpreters
seem to feel that the works peculiarities are to be attributed either to the
authors cultural background or to his strong personality. Russells description of Wittgenstein as perhaps the most perfect example I have
ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound,
intense, and dominating might well epitomize the interest that his person can generate.7 However, the Tractatus contains hardly anything that
might be called personal, which suggest that its uniqueness cannot be
explained as an emanation of Wittgensteins personality.8 Indeed, the fascination with Wittgensteins personality in relation to his work often
hinders a thorough inquiry into the inner necessity of the Tractatus singularity. For the impression does arise that Wittgensteins reections on
logic and the state of his soul are intimately connected. On reading his
diaries, putting together what has been separated by editors (Notebooks
19141916, and the secret war diaries or Geheime Tgebuchen), it is certainly tempting to establish a biographical connection to the strictly
philosophical writing.9 But the fact remains that no hint of the biographical material appears in the nal work. Thus the authors uniqueness and
the uniqueness of the work must be addressed without making the work
personal. That is, although the biographical response might be suggested by the work, it actually misrepresents the signicance of the person to the work and fails to account for the necessity of the rst-person
singular in a work of philosophy such as the Tractatus.
ideas. In Introduction to Wittgensteins Tractatus, p. 19, my emphasis. Anscombes deliberate
shift from having the same thoughts to being perplexed by the same problems, her insistence that Wittgensteins aphoristic style is actually a compressed argumentative form, and her
dissociation of understanding from the affective dimension of the book, all contribute to segregating the logical, the ethical, and the aesthetic into separate domains.
7. B. Russell, Autobiography, vol. 2, pp. 9899.
8. The distinction between uniqueness and other forms of understanding the personal will
be a topic I will address in my interpretation of solipsism in the Tractatus as well as in my reading of the ending of the book. This form of uniqueness will have to be elaborated so as to account for a claim such as: Only from the consciousness of the uniqueness of my life arises religionscienceand art (NB, p. 79). I assume that here uniqueness does not mean features of
my character or the events of my life that distinguish me from other human beings.
9. For an attempt to bring into the picture Wittgensteins diaries as a whole, see, for example, J. Floyds The Uncaptive Eye: Solipsism in Wittgensteins Tractatus.
Signs of Sense
Introduction
Wittgenstein here distinguishes the task of expression from the discovery of truths or the solving of problems. What has value is the force of
expression, and not the content of the statements made.
The thoughts expressed can be quite simple when uttered as theses.13
An example of the contrast between expression and mere utterance is
given in proposition 5.5563, where something like the point of the work
is stated: In fact, all the propositions of our everyday language, just
as they stand, are in perfect logical order.That utterly simple thing,
which we have to formulate here, is not a likeness of the truth, but the
truth itself in its entirety. What it takes to express the force of that is no
less than the Tractatus as a whole. This emphasis on expression should
be read in conjunction with the motto of the book: . . . and whatever a
man knows, whatever is not mere rumbling and roaring that he has
heard, can be said in three words.
Such emphasis on the expression of a point may seem to go against
the overwhelming impression that the Tractatus is a treatise organized
almost like an axiomatic system. The numbering system that orders the
propositions and divides the text into discrete parts, as well as the asser12. NB, p. 40.
13. I would think of such a separation of the problem of expression from the statement of
thoughts as preguring what Wittgenstein writes in Philosophical Investigations: If one tried to
advance theses in philosophy, it would never be possible to debate them, because everyone
would agree to them (PI, 128).
10
Signs of Sense
Introduction
11
while keeping in mind what has been said. But maybe it is precisely this
ordering that ultimately serves the nal gesture: for the ladder to be
thrown away, it must have existed in the rst place. Indeed, Wittgensteins remark that his book is not a textbook does not mean that the
reader is not tempted to a step-by-step advance, as if on a ladder. But
there will come a decisive moment when the very possibility of this advance will be rejected. One could also say that in order to address the
problem of the essentially distant, the unapproachable (and after all the
end of the Tractatus is concerned with the mystical), it is necessary to experience the attempt to draw near.
The Tractatus is a complex text, yet this complexity does not contradict the possibility of taking it in all at once. (This is not a psychological
remark but an aesthetic judgment concerning the form of the work.) In
this respect the brevity of the book is important, for it allows the reader
to advance while keeping in mind what has been read. The possibility of
that activity of comprehension is a condition for the force the work gathers at the end. It is a book with a point, and the point cannot be separated from encompassing its content in a certain way. It is a book whose
advance can be visualized, and one that can therefore stage a crisis of visualization. This is what makes it the exact opposite of Philosophical Investigations, a book that cannot be read in terms of a unique gesture, a
book with no sublime moment.16
Probing into the literariness of the Tractatus might seem out of place,
not just because of its seemingly straightforward logical content, but
also because Wittgenstein may often be perceived as a Socratic gure
who is essentially concerned with the dialogical teaching of philosophy.
This image of Wittgenstein as someone who does not writean impression that remains despite the two books and innumerable remarks he
did writemight be the result of Wittgensteins own denials that philosophy consists of a body of doctrine (4.112), and his claims that philosophizing always starts with someone elses confusion (6.53) or that it is
addressed to one person who can relate to it with understanding (pref16. I assume that the category of sublimity is relevant to assess the experience of the world
in the Tractatus, which is also, as I want to claim, the experience that is provoked by the reading
of the text. This will be developed in the last two chapters of this book. I will only point to
Kants characterization of the conditions of the experience of the sublime in terms of a ratio between the activities of apprehension and comprehension. See Critique of Judgment, trans. J. C.
Meredith, 26. For an elaboration of the conditions of such an experience, see E. Friedlander,
Kant and the Critique of False Sublimity, pp. 6991.
12
Signs of Sense
ace). I do not say that such an image is completely wrong, but merely
ask what it implies concerning Wittgensteins understanding of the nature of a book of philosophy. Indeed, writing need not be confused with
the assertion of positive theses. But then, what is writing, beyond theory,
in philosophy?
This leads to the question what signicance books had for Wittgenstein. He is reputed to have read few philosophical works, and he certainly writes as if the books of others are of no concern to him. And yet
mentions of books and book writing appear on various occasions in
Wittgensteins early writings.
In his Lecture on Ethics he imagines the writing of a book:
Suppose one of you were an omniscient person and therefore knew all
the movements of all the bodies in the world dead or alive and that he
also knew all the states of mind of all human beings that ever lived, and
suppose this man wrote all he knew in a big book, then this book
would contain the whole description of the world.17
A book of this sort presents us with the world as the sum total of facts,
letting us survey or contemplate all that is the case extensively or exhaustively. Enumeration constitutes the essence of such a book. It displays every possible fact to a reader who is imagined as a stranger or
spectator to this world. But Wittgenstein also envisaged another kind of
book, in the same Lecture on Ethics:
And now I must say that if I contemplate what Ethics really would have
to be if there were such a science, this result seems to me quite obvious. It seems to me obvious that nothing we could ever think or say
should be the thing. That we cannot write a scientic book, the subject
matter of which could be intrinsically sublime and above all other subject matters. I can only describe my feeling by the metaphor, that, if a
man could write a book on Ethics which really was a book on Ethics,
this book would, with an explosion, destroy all the other books in the
world.18
This book can be seen as the opposite of the great book of facts. If the
rst kind of book has nothing but facts, nothing essentially beyond
facts, or nothing transcendent, then the second kind of book is nothing
17. LE, p. 6.
18. LE, p. 7.
Introduction
13
but pure transcendence. The explosion of that book (for in the fantasy of
The Book, the apocalyptic book, or the book to end all books, as I picture it, what explodes is the book itself), evokes the manifestation of the
essentially distant or other. The explosion, the clat, to elaborate the gure, is a ash of light that signals that something has been destroyed, or
has disappeared. Platos sun, if it were to rise at all, would illuminate the
disappearance of the ground we wished to stand on in its light.19
The two books have something in common: they present a view of the
beyond; the rst in terms of innitely detailed enumeration, and the second in terms of the intensity of pure transcendence. They are both fantastic or impossible books, the rst because of its innite exhaustiveness, the second because of its immediate explosiveness. But this very
feature would seem to distinguish them from the Tractatus, which, after
all, we hold before us. But do we? And what precisely do we hold, once
we have thrown away the ladder?
The Tractatus shares some striking features with the apocalyptic book.
It declares, for instance, that it puts an end to all books of philosophy or
metaphysics by solving all problems of philosophy. It further exemplies
the explosive movement of the imaginary book on ethics: it does, if we
follow what drives it, collapse into nothing.
The Tractatus also shares some features of the rst imaginary book.
Although it does not list all that is the case, it creates the impression that
it speaks of the world from the perspective from which that would be
possible. It makes us consider the world as all that is the case and elaborates what is involved in adopting such a perspective.
I claim, then, that the Tractatus incorporates both kinds of book.
Wittgenstein begins with the fantasy of the exhaustive book and ends
with the fantasy of the apocalyptic book; that is, he elaborates the Tractatus between two fantasies of doing away with work, in particular with
the work of language. This means, not surprisingly perhaps, that the
Tractatus is an impossible work. Logically speaking, the Tractatus does
not exist. An impossible work must necessarily have an illusory consis19. Walter Benjamin uses a similar gure to express his understanding of the philosophical
text. He writes: In the eld with which we are concerned, knowledge exists only in lightning
ashes. The text is the thunder rolling long afterwards. Quoted in G. Smith, ed., Benjamin:
Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, p. 43. Importantly, Benjamin does not identify the philosophical
text with the lightning but rather with the thunder that is separated from the lightning. Thus
for him too the book that is pure transcendence is an impossible book.
14
Signs of Sense
Introduction
15
16
Signs of Sense
Introduction
17
from being mysterious logical preconditions for the functioning of language, form a world of possibilities of meaning which a human subject
can assume and through whose appropriation the subject is made manifest. They are internally related to our everyday use of language, to the
opening of possibilities of existence in that everyday world of concerns.
It is for this reason that objects cannot be given systematically; our recognition of them cannot be grounded in advance of experience, for they
stand at the place of our openness to experience, which is the ultimate
imperative of the work.
That the recovery of experience is an imperative means that it is to be
achieved against an urge to transcend the limits of experience, an urge
which manifests itself in language in the form of nonsense. The recognition of signicance is thus achieved as a return from nonsense.23
23. This description of the aim of the Tractatus might strike readers acquainted with it as
strange. Part of the aim of the detailed reading is to make it convincing. But I would add this:
opening onto meaningfulness or signicance is to be contrasted with two perspectives, that of
facts and that of pure transcendence. Those are the two temptations between which the book is
stretched: the temptation of the beginning and that of the end. Giving in to the rst temptation
will yield the understanding of the book as concerned essentially with the elaboration of the
possibility of language to picture facts. Giving in to the second temptation will yield seeing the
whole point of the book as concerned with a mystical grasp of the transcendent source of value
outside the world. It is nevertheless important that the Tractatus touch upon those two extremes. It is concerned, one might say, with this world, with experience as it is given in language (thus sharing something with the perspective of facts), but also with viewing this experience as the emergence of meaning out of nothing, a certain experience of ungroundedness of
meaning (thus sharing something with the perspective of transcendence). I call the possibility
of going beyond the dichotomy of facticity and transcendence the opening onto creation in language.
Part One
Signs of Sense
Logic Apart
Logic Apart
The tendency to focus mainly on the oddity of the end of the Tractatus
may cause us to overlook the striking nature of its opening. The force of
the opening propositions is surely connected to their ontological tenor.
How can one start with the world as such, after Kant? How can one
bypass language after Frege and Russell? To be sure, language is introduced later in the text, and this makes it possible to read back into
that beginning a more nuanced account. But such a retroactive reading
would lose the tone to which the opening is pitcheda tone that itself
needs to be explained and its purpose examined. Is it, as we are tempted
to say, the tone of metaphysics, and if it is, why should Wittgenstein
have even begun with the tone of a metaphysical treatise in a work that
problematizes to the extreme the very possibility of metaphysics?
An easy way out of this initial quandary is to invoke the end of the
book at the very beginning. Several interpreters have been tempted to
say that Wittgenstein introduces ontology only to overcome it after a few
steps up the ladder.1 For if the book is ultimately metaphysical non1. E. Anscombe, for example, immediately opens her commentary with a discussion of elementary propositions, as if it were obvious that there were no place for the ontological question.
T. Ricketts thinks of Wittgensteins rhetoric in the 2.0s as carefully calculated both to limn a
metaphysical picture and simultaneously to cancel the incompatible implicatures that any presentation of this metaphysics carries with it . . . When subsequently we reect on Wittgensteins
words, on the view we take these words to convey, we realize that, on their own telling, they do
not communicate a view at all. Wittgensteins words pull themselves apart. See Pictures,
Logic and the Limits of Sense in Wittgensteins Tractatus, in Sluga and Stern, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, pp. 8990. This description might indeed convey the dialectic at work in the Tractatus, but in that case it must be carried all the way to the end.
By stressing the attempt to start from the world, I do not mean to say that the perspectives of
21
22
Signs of Sense
sense, why shouldnt that fact be made clear from the start? Undoubtedly, some justice bolsters the intuition that a certain way of speaking of
the world that is exemplied at the very beginning of the text has to be
overcome. But what I nd suspicious is the hasty recourse to a safe haven in the realm of language, that is, the apparent need to invoke the
ladder at the very outset, while neglecting it throughout the rest of the
book until it reemerges at the end.
The relation between beginning and end must indeed be conceived in
the context of the ontological tone of the opening, but not necessarily in
order to reject the ontological perspective. Indeed, I suggest that Wittgensteins return to the possibility of seeing the world aright at the end
should itself be interpreted ontologically, not beyond language but at the
limits of language. In a circular structure, the book starts with the world
as such, a world as if beyond language, only to return to it at the end
through an understanding of the limits of language.2 Overemphasis on
the gure of the ladder as the key to understanding the structure of the
book distracts attention from this circle. I am suggesting then that we
can think of the structure of the Tractatus by means of a gure that
stands to some extent in tension with the gure of the ladder, that of the
circle. The seeming tension between the linear advance suggested by the
ladder and the idea of return suggested by the circle is resolved by the
fact that the ladder must be thrown away. Having thrown it away, we do
not nd ourselves somewhere outside or above the world. To throw it
away marks, one might say, the realization that one is being returned to
the world, with no further need for any ladder.
What is it like to enter this circle, to be returned to the world we have
left behind in the very rst steps of thinking? Does Wittgenstein indeed
world and of language are entirely independent of each other. Wittgenstein importantly interweaves remarks about language with his account of the world and its objects (see, for instance,
2.0122, 2.02112.0212, 2.0231). Nevertheless it remains to be explained why he chooses to
start with a seemingly ontological perspective. Often the wish to see language there from the
beginning burdens Wittgensteins thinking with a form of transcendentalism, as if he argued
that the condition of the possibility of language is that the world be thus and so. Such transcendental arguments miss the force of Wittgensteins anti-a priorism. This will be demonstrated in
my discussion of Wittgensteins conception of the nature of analysis and of the subject.
2. I nd it signicant that neither the opening propositions nor any hints at the surprise of
the end of the book appear anywhere in the Notebooks. Most of the Tractatus appears in some
form in the Notebooks, but such material is ordered and enclosed, encircled as it were by the beginning and the end.
Logic Apart
23
close a circle when he returns to the world at the end? Does he make
ends meet and return to the world he opened with, that is, to all that is
the case? Or is there a certain gap, something that does not let itself be
closed and that constitutes the very thing which the Tractatus teaches to
be the experience of the world? Although seeing the world aright is not
just seeing all that is the case, nothing is added. To think of the world as
more than all the facts there are cannot be regarded as determining a
realm apart from facts. The book as a whole can be seen as a work of
elaborating and intensifying that fundamental tension, the tension inherent to transcending the factual.
The books circularity of structure provides a clue to the Tractatus aim
and effects. Wittgensteins statement in the preface that the aim of the
book is to draw a limit to thought can be read as meaning that thought
is to be restored to its proper bounds, as in Kants work of critique, and
as further implying that there is nothing beyond thought. In a certain
way this expresses the aim of the Tractatus correctly. But Wittgensteins
aim is just as much to show that thought is limited, to present us with an
interpretation of nitude.3 Such a limitation does not mean that there is
something beyond the limits, but it does grant a fundamental importance to the very experience of limitation. Limitation will mean that
there is the world itself in excess to what can be said. The experience of
limitation, I suggest, is the experience of the world. Thus the problem of
the circle in the Tractatus is how to advance to a sense of the limits of
thought, while realizing that limitation does not place anything on the
other side of thought (except the very existence of a world). The difculty is to see that there is always something more to what is said. As
Wittgenstein put it to Ficker, there is always that part of the book that
he did not write. We should add that this is not a part that can ever be
written.
It is the world that is the aim of thought. But having barely been mentioned, the world seems already lost in an avalanche of terms leading
from facts to states of affairs to their constituents. We are abruptly introduced to a multitude of terms and distinctions: the world, what is the
3. To think of the Tractatus as elaborating a conception of nitude hinges on an understanding of Wittgensteins concept of limit. Juliet Floyd presents a powerful interpretation of
his position on this issue in The Uncaptive Eye: Solipsism in Wittgensteins Tractatus, in L.
Rouner, ed., Loneliness (forthcoming). I nd many points of agreement as well as of difference
with Floyds position, which will be mentioned in chapter 11.
24
Signs of Sense
Logic Apart
25
26
Signs of Sense
ical or contradictory facts in the world. But I do insist that there is something peculiar about the attributes of logic in the Tractatus. One of its
famous claims is that there is no such thing as logical laws; that the laws
of logic, say in Frege or Russells view, are tautological or senseless.
Wittgenstein also writes that logical constants do not stand for anything.
Such claims should, I think, raise some questions about the role of logic
in determining what there is, the constitution of objects. If, for example,
someone were to argue that the laws of physics were senseless and that
physical constants had no meaning, would it not be incoherent to then
say that things had irreducible physical properties? So why does it seem
to readers of the Tractatus coherent to argue that the laws of logic are
senseless, to add that logical constants are not representatives of objects,
and yet to want to insist that logic determines what there is? Such a misinterpretation stems partly from the reluctance to take seriously the ontological standpoint, the centrality of the term world in Wittgensteins
account. More specically, it results, as I will show, from a misreading of
his notion of object. Indeed, facts, or for that matter propositions that
represent facts, cannot exist without logic; but is Wittgensteins aim ultimately to account for facts?
What is required then is to challenge the idea that our grasp of what
objects are is given to us by the logic which, according to Wittgenstein,
essentially characterizes what facts are. The understanding of the grammar of the object will be distinct from the understanding of the space of
facts spanned by logic.7 An intuition of the world apart from logic will
also be a view of the world apart from the perspective of facts. Such a
view will go through many renements and complexities, but will express the fundamental tension throughout the book to its end. It will
take some time until we are in a position to assess the signicance of the
possibility of opening to the world apart from logic, but we require
something that can start us on our way up the ladder. It is necessary to
perceive that all the distinctions Wittgenstein makes are subordinate
to that insight, that all his claims revolve around it. Lifting us up to
7. Frege, for instance, thinks of ontology as supervenient on logic. To be an object is to
behave thus and so in inferential patterns. See on this point Freges On Concept and Object,
in Translations From the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, eds. P. Geach and M. Black, as
well as T. Ricketts powerful interpretation of Freges understanding of the primacy of judgment in Objectivity and Objecthood: Freges Metaphysics of Judgment, in L. Haaparanta and
J. Hintikka, eds., Frege Synthesized.
Logic Apart
27
Reading this series of claims we might be tempted to a reductivist picture and take facts to be constructed out of states of affairs and these in
turn to be composed of their basic elements, the objects. In such a picture something must provide the structure of the construction, and this
cement would be logic.8
But is this Wittgensteins picture? What is the relation between facts
and states of affairs, and between the latter and objects? What is the nature of the contrast between facts and states of affairs? What is the nature of the shift from one perspective to the other? For I will, indeed,
8. I realize that this presentation is rather schematic. I do intend it to refer to Russells early
conception of logic, according to which logic is, strictly speaking, part of the furniture of the
universe. Certain aspects of this early realism also carry over to his later logical atomism. In his
preface to The Philosophy of Logical Atomism Russell associates his thought with Wittgensteins: The following [is the text] of a course of eight lectures [which] are largely concerned
with explaining certain ideas which I learnt from my friend and former pupil Ludwig Wittgenstein; see B. Russell, Logic and Knowledge, p. 177. This assessment of Russells concerning the
relation of his logical atomism to Wittgensteins thought is problematic. Indeed, it might be the
source of many misreadings of the relation between facts and states of affairs. The problem appears rst in relation to the question of simplicity, for Russell does not think of simple objects
as containing internal complexity. But that is the reason why everything that pertains to the
realm of possibilities must be expressed through external relations, thus in relation to molecular propositions rather than elementary propositions. For that reason logical structure is part of
the constitution of reality. There is no sense in speaking of a perspective on the world apart
from logic. There is no opening to possibilities apart from the space of possibilities given by
logic.
28
Signs of Sense
Wittgenstein does not say that a Tatsache is a logical product of Sachverhalten. He says that it corresponds to the logical product of elementary
propositions. This apparently pedantic distinction on my part is actually
essential. If we were to say that it is the fact itself that is a conjunction of
states of affairs, this would imply that there is a relation (that of conjunction) between those states of affairs. But what Wittgenstein wants to
emphasize is precisely that a fact consists of states of affairs that stand in
no logical relation whatsoever to one another, that are independent of
one another (2.061). States of affairs merely co-exist. There is nothing
that holds states of affairs together to constitute a specic fact. A fact is,
ontologically speaking, just the taking place or existence of individual
states of affairs.
This then claries the nature of the contrast between the two perspectives. Speaking of the perspective of facts, Wittgenstein emphasizes that
facts are in logical space, that The facts in logical space are the world
(1.13). But as he shifts to the perspective of states of affairs, logical
space, as it were, disappears.10 A fact is just the existence of states of
9. LRKM, p. 72.
10. Such a shift away from the logical space that surrounds facts explains the rather puzzling sequence of claims: The world divides into facts (1.2); and Each item can be the case
or not the case while everything else remains the same (1.21). Why state that The world divides into facts after having said that The world is the totality of facts? What is the nature of
this division that makes it worth mentioning? And is it not contradictory to assert that facts are
in a logical space and then say that the division into facts results in items that are logically independent of one another? I assume that the possibility of that division must reinforce the sense
that there is a perspective from which logical relations are seen to disappear. Thus the division
is the possibility of separating all the facts into classes, such that the existence of any one class
is independent of any other class. When Wittgenstein says that Each item can be the case or
not the case while everything else remains the same (1.21), he does not mean that any fact re-
Logic Apart
29
30
Signs of Sense
with even at the level of states of affairs. Granted, the notions of logical
space and fact are correlative, but this does not require that logical space
be viewed as a constituent added to facts. That facts are in this space
means that logical space belongs internally to what it is to be a fact. This
does not make logical space a reality external to facts, which belongs to
the furniture of the universe. When Wittgenstein writes The facts in
logical space are the world, it is precisely to emphasize that logical
space is not an additional entity but a condition of facticity as such.13
The logic of facts, the relations of implication among facts, are not external properties of facts. Indeed, to have a fact is to have something that
is, for instance, negatable or conjoinable with other facts. Placing facts
in logical space brings out the way a fact is internally related to various
logical possibilities. Logical space is not an entity in which facts are embedded. One could say that each and every fact opens a space around it
that is determined by the particular fact it is. This is the space of inferential relations of that factthe various logical possibilities that are intrinsically related to the taking place of that fact. The aim of adopting a perspective apart from logic, as I initially understood this move, is to shift
away from the perspective of facts. To go beyond that perspective is to
view the world in terms of states of affairs, recognizing which states of
things there are. This does not mean that a state of affairs is a different
kind of entity than a fact. Obviously, states of affairs are facts, but they
have another aspect, which is revealed by turning to their constituents.
In states of affairs the objects are given to us. The space of states of affairs is the space of possibilities opened by objects. But I want to emphasize that this is a different space from what Wittgenstein calls the logical
space of facts.
Speaking somewhat guratively, we can also say that a fact opens onto
an outside, onto other facts, whereas a state of affairs is closed upon it13. Wittgensteins use of the term logic is complex, and there are reasons for that complexity. When I emphasize the aim of viewing the world apart from the perspective of logic, I take
logic to be something like Frege and Russells view of logic. Wittgenstein also uses logic to
mean something like the philosophical investigation into the nature of that conception (as in
2.012). He uses the notion of space both in connection with logic (logical space as in 1.13,
4.463) and in connection with objects (as in 2.013, 2.0131). In his discussion of space in relation to objects, what is emphasized is that such space is internal to what the object is. It is not
an entity that stands over and above such objects. This should also be the way one understands
the notion of logical space surrounding a fact. In Chapter 2 I will develop further the understanding of form based on the identication of form and space.
Logic Apart
31
self, or its connection to other such states is made through its inner constitutionits objects. Its space is the space of its objects. This does not
mean that it cannot be taken as a fact, only that viewed in itself it reveals
something other than the space-of-facts (logical space).14 These issues
will be discussed later at length; here I should just like to stress that a
state of affairs is where two aspects of reality come together (call them
the form and the content). On the one hand, by virtue of the determinate way in which the objects of the state of affairs are combined, the
state of affairs is a fact. The state of affairs viewed as a fact stands in a
space of possibilities spanned by logic. On the other hand, in a state of
affairs we are given objects, and thus there is also a realm of possibilities
determined by the nature or form of the objects.15 I assume that while
these two perspectives overlap, the view of the world through its objects
presents us with substantive possibilities (I will also use the term real
possibilities to indicate this aspect), whereas logical space gives us only
abstract or formal possibilities. To think of the world apart from logic, or
beyond facticity, is to open up to real possibilities.
Although the above may point at the direction to take when interpreting the opening of the Tractatus, it cannot show how such an interpretation would work in detail. In particular, we need to clarify how to determine possibilities at the level of states of affairs without assuming logical
space, the space of facts. To appreciate the kind of problems such an account can raise, let us consider the following two propositions: The
world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts(1.11);
For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever
is not the case (1.12). This claim might at rst sound trivial: if we list
all that is the case, then what remains is what is not the case. But things
are not so simple. The question is precisely how to determine what remains? How is what remains determined by all that is the case? In the
14. The German term Wittgenstein uses, vorkommen, which has the connotation of coming out (from beneath the cover of facts), reveals the connection between states of affairs and
the appearance of the object, its uncovering.
15. Wittgensteins distinction between situation (Sachlage) and state of affairs (Sachverhalt) marks these two perspectives. He uses Sachlage to emphasize the factual aspect of states
of affairs. Thus Sachlage can be used in relation to facts in general, but also to emphasize the
factual aspect of states of affairs. See, for instance, 2.0122, where the independence of the thing
means its being considered as occurring in situations, whereas its dependence is a connection
with states of affairs.
32
Signs of Sense
case of facts, their being in logical space provides the necessary determination; it is, for example, internal to a fact that its negation is not a fact
but is possible. But Wittgenstein also states that The totality of existing
states of affairs determines which states of affairs do not exist. How
would existing states of affairs determine nonexisting states of affairs?16
Indeed, whoever has a realistic conception of logic might do away
with the problem by saying that since logical constants such as negation
have reality, we can not do without ultimate facts of the form this and
that is not the case. But if my interpretation of Wittgensteins intentions
is correct, he needs an account of so-called negative facts that do not
presuppose an object that is negation (or for that matter the reality of
logical constants). What this initial picture of the world is supposed to
convey is that we can have a complete account of all existing states of affairs and of what is merely possible, without postulating logical objects.
According to Wittgensteins use of the term fact, the nonexistence of
a state of affairs is not itself a fact (although the negation of a nonexistent state of affairs is one).17 Rather, we should say that the nonexistence
of states of affairs has reality. Understanding the notion of reality de16. To take a concrete example, given that facts are in logical space, it is a fact that such and
such is not the case; but what is this very fact composed of, in terms of states of affairs that
exist?
17. Wittgensteins terminology might be somewhat confusing. From his letter to Russell
quoted above we can say that facts, as Wittgenstein uses that term in the opening of the
Tractatus, are the correlates of conjunctions of true elementary propositions. He does not talk of
existing facts and nonexisting facts (facts as it were that are only possible). He reserves the term
fact for what is the case. What we would be tempted to call possible facts should be explained
by appealing to the logical space internal to what it is to be a fact. States of affairs, as opposed to
facts, can have existence or not have existence: The existence and non-existence of states of
affairs is reality. (We also call the existence of states of affairs a positive fact, and their non-existence a negative fact.) (2.06). This might cause some confusion, unless we realize that the
terms positive fact and negative fact are replaced by Wittgensteins analysis of states of affairs.
We here does not refer to the author of the Tractatus but to the users of traditional logical notions. The existence of states of affairs replaces the traditional notion of a positive fact; the nonexistence of states of affairs replaces the traditional notion of a negative fact. This shift then
points precisely to Wittgensteins aim to do away with the logical constants, in particular with
the operation of negation. We can account for what we called negative facts, facts which seem
essentially to involve negation, by the existence and nonexistence of states of affairs. Moreover, the states of affairs which do not exist do not involve negation, but are rather determined
by the internal constitution of those states of affairs that exist through the objects. (See Chapter 2.)
Logic Apart
33
Signs of Sense
The difculty we experience in grasping Wittgensteins aim in his account of objects derives from the prevalence of certain traditional notions of objecthood which are evoked by, and then imposed on, his text.
It is therefore essential to be aware that Wittgenstein subverts the various distinctions that are used in the metaphysical tradition of elaborating the concept of an object. Traditional approaches to the notion of object postulate some of the following oppositions: internal (essential) and
external (material, or contingent) property, the universal and the concrete particular, the simple and the complex, form and matter. Working
through the propositions concerning objects in the Tractatus reveals
how Wittgenstein goes beyond these distinctions to give us another approach to the object that escapes traditional frameworks.
A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects
(2.01). We can start by asking, as we did when considering the relation
of states of affairs to facts, what holds the objects together in a state of
affairs. The answer will be similar: nothing does. There is no thing holding the objects together. What holds things together cannot be another
thing. In a state of affairs objects t into one another like the links of a
chain (2.03). The elements of the chain are not held together by something like glue, but rather hold together by virtue of their own constitution. This way of putting the point is rather empty, but it can serve to illuminate the priority of the states of affairs over the object, which would
explain why we need not account for the unication of objects into
states of affairs. We might nevertheless be tempted to say, wrongly, that
there is something about an object that enables it to be combined with
34
35
To know an object is to know its possibilities of combination, what Wittgenstein calls its form. It is impossible to understand the role of objects
1. This is, one could say, an ontological version of Cora Diamonds understanding of nonsense and of her claim that there cannot be informative nonsense. See in particular On What
Nonsense Might Be, in The Realistic Spirit.
36
Signs of Sense
and their place in states of affairs if we do not follow closely Wittgensteins distinction between form and structure. Form is a notion that can
be elaborated both with respect to logical space and to what I have called
the space of the object. I will rst think of it, as Wittgenstein does, in relation to the object. Initially we can say that the form has to do with the
possibilities of combination of objects. The form of an object is, so to
speak, its grammar, shown through the states of affairs it can occur in.
Objects contain the possibility of all situations (2.014); The possibility of its occurring in states of affairs is the form of an object (2.0141).
In order to avoid the temptation of thinking of the object as an it,
Wittgenstein further elaborates the account of possibilities by means of
the analogy with a space. Thus we are invited to think of a form not so
much according to the model of a gure in space (which, I take it, would
be the natural understanding of form), but rather in terms of a space
taken as a whole. Objects are not in space, as if the space were independent of the object that occurs in it. Rather, the space is precisely the form
of the object. Just as there is no spatial point apart from space, so there is
no object apart from the space of possibilities that characterizes it:
Just as we are quite unable to imagine spatial objects outside space,
or temporal objects outside time, so too there is no object that we
can imagine excluded from the possibility of combining with others.
(2.0121)
A spatial object must be situated in innite space. (A spatial point is
an argument-place.)
A speck in the visual eld, though it need not be red, must have
some color: it is, so to speak, surrounded by color-space. Notes must
have some pitch, objects of the sense of touch some degree of hardness,
and so on. (2.0131)
37
38
Signs of Sense
39
a fact of space, a fact of color, a fact of time, but rather a fact at all). The
form of facts is what we have called the logical space that surrounds a
fact. Once more, we must be careful to point out that here too form
means the occurrence of possibilities that are internal to the fact. But
those possibilities are merely what is internal to being a fact at all, not to
the nature of the objects which occur in that fact. Thus it is internal to a
fact that it can be negated. It is part of the grasping of the form of that
fact that we understand its relation to its negation. The congurations
that express material properties are therefore congurations of a certain
form, of the form of facts in logical space. The form that allows these
congurations is in no way the form that determines the real possibilities of objects. This distinction between the form of the object and that
of the fact is essential and will recur as we develop Wittgensteins account of picturing.
In attempting to further rene the idea of form in relation to objects,
care should be taken to avoid certain misleading pictures. One attractive, but to my mind false, conception of what Wittgenstein means is
that an object is a space of possibilities, as it were, laid out before us. A
combination of such objects would be a choice of particular places in
such spaces of possibility. For instance, the objects are a space of color, a
coordinate system, and a time axis. A fact would then be a red square in
such and such a place between two oclock and two thirty. The problem
with this picture is that we think of the fact as containing objects, that is,
we think of the object as given in a specic fact (or we separate it from
its space). But the fact cannot give us the objects since they are what
they are only by virtue of their relations with other possibilities; they appear only through the space of combination. The object we imagine
within a fact is falsely contained, isolated, reied, or made into an entity
which we imagine we can grasp independently of its space of possibilities. Therefore we should not say that in grasping a material property we
are given objects in a particular conguration, for this gives us only a
conguration in logical space: the objects, as it were, recede from our
view. Inversely, when we have an object, we can only have a form, a
whole space of possibilities, never a specic fact. We can also say that in
establishing the fact of the relation of objects, we lose the object space
that makes the relation possiblethe background. Conversely, when
trying to make the form of the objects appear, we do not take any particular fact into account.
40
Signs of Sense
A correct understanding of the distinction between an internal property and an external property depends on grasping the difference between the perspective of facts and that of objects. That difference of
perspective will develop into a radical distinction between what is represented by propositions and what is shown through the internal relations
of their constituents. Attributing a property to an object is always a matter of producing a particular structure or conguration of a space of possibilities, a form. Facts are always a matter of how objects of given forms
are related, always a matter of structure, articulation, or conguration
given the form. Objects are conditions of facts. The fact is the how
given a what. A fact can be said to be skeletal; it is the specication of a
conguration which does not include any elements to be combined. It is
the how of combination provided by logical structure in which things
form the nodes of that structure.4
Should we say that objects in themselves are only form? Wittgenstein
writes: In a manner of speaking objects are colorless (2.0232), meaning that they are only form and have no material properties. But this is
just a way of characterizing a different grammar of internal and external
properties of what belongs to the object and what appears in the fact. Indeed, the claim that objects in themselves are only form might lead to
various misunderstandings. It might tempt us to think of objects as universals. It is therefore necessary to clarify that a form is not a general
property.
In a certain space of form one can speak of facts concerning particular
points in that space, or of facts about points in general. But the general
should not be identied with the formal (in Wittgensteins sense). A
general fact is no less a fact. It is a determination of a certain conguration of objects rather than a form (or space of possibilities).5
Related to the misconception of forms as universals is the temptation
4. We must take care not to introduce here a distinction between the schematic and the
contentful that will be later reproduced as an interpretation of what happens at the level of language. We must remember that the distinction between form and structure is drawn before language is brought into the picture and concerns the relation between facts and objects.
5. Contrast this with, for instance, Freges view in which logic is correlative with the most
general properties of facts and will be expressed in fully generalized propositions. The distinction between a regular concept and something that exhibits form will become clearer in Wittgensteins account of formal concepts.
41
Let us consider again the analogy with space. Two points in space have
the same form, and apart from their external properties, the fact of their
relation with other points, there is nothing that distinguishes them. As
we move to the level of language, the statement that distinctness appears
through external properties or facts translates into the claim that the
only distinction we can make is by representing such facts: by describing
an object in such a way as to distinguish it from another. Thus there is
no way to determine absolute difference.
This is further reinforced by the following proposition, with its peculiarly convoluted structure:
Either a thing has properties that nothing else has, in which case we
can immediately use a description to distinguish it from the others and
refer to it; or, on the other hand, there are several things that have the
whole set of their properties in common, in which case it is quite impossible to indicate one of them.
For if there is nothing to distinguish a thing, I cannot distinguish it,
since otherwise it would be distinguished after all. (2.02331)
42
Signs of Sense
implies that logical constants have no ontological reality, so nothing corresponds to the relation of identity. There is no translation, in terms
of elementary propositions, of (a b).(f )(fa fb). We cannot ultimately say that two objects have all their properties in common yet are
different. Two different objects will just be given two different names in
a proper notational system.
Wittgensteins characterization of objects as subsistent, unalterable,
making up the substance of the world, tempts us to turn them into eternal ideas, to entirely dissociate them from happenings in the world, from
the concreteness of experience. Brooms or beds cannot simply be objects, it seems. We are tempted to think of such objects as existing necessarily, and our grasp of them as a priori. I want to insist nevertheless that
considering states of affairs, and thus objects, provides a different perspective on experience. Their connection with facts is yet to be made
clear, but we should be alert at this point against assuming various misleading presuppositions. It is true that the objects form the background
of alteration, of conguration, of the changeable and the unstable, but
they cannot be recognized apart from an investigation of phenomena.
Indeed, as I understand it, Wittgensteins insistence on distancing himself from traditional accounts of form is ultimately connected to his wish
not to reify the space of possibilities, not to make it a realm of a priori
ideas distinct from experience.
These considerations allow us now to address a deep confusion concerning simplicity in the Tractatus. In it Wittgenstein never uses the
term simple object, which would imply that some objects are simple
and some are complex, but states that objects are simple. Nor does he
say that every object is simple. The claim that objects are simple does not
express accidental generality but denes the very concept of an object,
the essential distinction between objects and facts, or between what an
object is and what can be attributed to it through its appearance in situations. In the traditional picture we think of simple objects as a subset of
all objects, as those which are the ultimate building blocks or atoms of
reality. The picture I suggest makes the simplicity of the object constitutive of the notion of objecthood. It is opposed to the articulability of
facts, or their inherent complexity. It marks a distinction between facts
and the condition of facts.
Wittgenstein writes: Every statement about complexes can be re-
43
solved into a statement about their constituents and into the propositions that describe the complexes completely (2.0201). It is signicant
that this statement concerns language. We can treat a fact as if it were an
object by naming it, but this does not make it into a complex object. It
will always be resolved in analysis. Complexity is always a matter of
fact. A fact and a complex are one and the same. There is no complex
object over and above the fact that consists of the specic relation of
its elements. Speaking of the complexity of objects is speaking nonsense.
The desire to make simple objects into a subset of all objects derives, I
think, from a misconception of the nature of simplicity. Simplicity is often pictured as uniformity, as a lack of discernible parts. This is why
sense data are taken to be paradigmatic examples of simplicity. But for
Wittgenstein recognition of simplicity is recognition of the possibilities
of an object as internal to what it is. A broom, for instance, might be
composed of various parts, but that does not make it complex. One
could say that the possibilities of its parts are not in the same space as
the possibilities of the broom.
What is usually called the argument for simples in 2.021 2.0212 is
then misinterpreted if it is conceived as involving something like a Russellian notion of analysis, which leads to ultimate constituents that are
really simple. Wittgenstein would say that analysis must lead to elementary propositions containing names in immediate combination. This is
very different from saying that analysis leads to logically structured
propositions containing ultimate constituents. Wittgensteins scheme
incorporates the logical scaffolding into the form of the object to get to a
level of names in immediate combination, so as to make contact with a
world apart from logic. Russells scheme complicates logical structure to
get to constituents that cannot be broken down any further. In the former case, the criterion of success is the disappearance of logic; in the latter case, the discovery of the most basic building blocks bound with the
cement of logic.
This perception calls into question the soundness of the interpretative
enterprise of lling in for Wittgenstein the category of simples, of determining which of the things we encounter in experience could count
as suchwhether sense data or physical objects or space-time points,
whether particulars or universals. The fact about the Tractatus is that
44
Signs of Sense
45
46
Signs of Sense
condition of having facts is that there is a form within which facts take
place. By grasping that form, we grasp what it is for states of affairs to exist, and what it is for states of affairs not to exist.
It is important to note that Wittgenstein does not argue that an existing state of affairs determines the nonexistence of other states of affairs. He writes: The totality of existing states of affairs also determines
which states of affairs do not exist (2.05). The idea of a totality of existing states of affairs allows Wittgenstein to distinguish the concept of determination from inference. From the existence or non-existence of one
state of affairs it is impossible to infer the existence or non-existence of
another (2.062). Indeed, when we speak of facts in logical space, such
inferential relations would hold. From p being the case we can infer that
p is not the case. But in order to determine which states of affairs do
not exist, we must consider the existing states of affairs as a whole. They,
through their objects, will allow us to grasp the whole space of possibilities and thus to determine the nonexisting states of affairs without this
being a matter of inference.
In other words, what is real for us is not just that a state of affairs exists, but also that a state of affairs does not exist. The nonexistence of a
state of affairs should be distinguished from no reality at all, and the basis for that distinction is that objects have form. What is not the case is
not nothing, but it is not a fact either. There is something real beyond
the facts: that which makes facts possible; this is what I will call the horizon of form.
The Wittgensteinian understanding of objects through the notion of
form establishes a connection between an object and real possibilities.
An object cannot be grasped apart from a space of possibilities. So we
can now use this conception of object to open a perspective beyond the
conditions of possibility provided by logic. What are the possibilities of
an object? Do possibilities exist in the world apart from human subjects? How are they opened to our view, or how do we open ourselves to
them? These are questions that cannot be answered at this stage of our
inquiry, for one of the most important requirements for a proper reading
of the Tractatus is to know when to ask the right questions.
Signs of Sense
48
Signs of Sense
49
In order to bring out these issues, my discussion of picturing will contrast the representation of facts (through the structure of pictures) with
the pictorial form that provides a locus of identity between language and
things. This distinction introduces into my interpretation of picturing
the split between the articulation of the structure of facts and the form of
objects, a split that I identied in talking about the opening propositions
of the Tractatus.
It is this intuition that will guide me through a reading of Wittgensteins discussion of picturing. I will thus endeavor to address both the
possibility of representing facts and the sense that such a capacity does
not characterize the subject for us. If the most general capacity of relating through pictures to facts is what Wittgenstein calls thinking, this
means that such thinking is not wholly constitutive of human subjectivity (There is no such thing as the subject that thinks or entertains
ideas; 5.631).
Many commentators emphasize that we should understand a picture
through the concept of an isomorphism. It is a picture of some fact, we
are told, if its elements are arranged in the same way as the objects are
arranged in reality. Two things are thus identied: what makes a picture
a picturethe pictoriality of the pictureand what makes it a correct
picture of some specic fact.
A mere glance at the text, however, raises doubts about this interpretation. We note rst that pictures can be correct or incorrect. But if picturing is dened by its isomorphism to the fact, then something would
be a picture only if there were a corresponding fact. How could there be
an incorrect picture? One way of thinking of false pictures would be to
say that isomorphism obtains between the picture and a possibility. This
solution has a drawback, since it would fail to explain what distinguishes the representation of a possible state of affairs, thus a false picture, from a correct representation of what is the case. The capacity of
the picture to represent possibilities must be independent of the relation
that determines its truth or falsity.
Indeed, this stress on isomorphism as the central component of the
account of picturing leads us to think of picturing mainly in terms of a
relation between structures. But I should like to shift the emphasis to the
role of form (as elaborated in the previous chapter) in the account of
50
Signs of Sense
A. Being Representative
A central drawback of the interpretation that emphasizes the isomorphism of structure in the account of picturing is that it sidetracks us to
problems of reference, prompting us to ask what it is that enables the elements of the picture to refer to objects in the world so as to make the
isomorphism possible. We are then led to think of Wittgensteins notion
of being representative as involving an account of reference. But Wittgenstein merely says: That is how a picture is attached to reality; it
reaches right out to it (2.1511). Rather than accusing Wittgenstein of
philosophical naivete, we should realize that he is not at all concerned
with giving an account of reference at this point.
Wittgensteins account of picturing does not include an account of reference. This can explain why he uses the term being representative
rather than meaning (bedeuten) for the relation of the elements of the
picture to objects. Indeed, the term representative suggests some arbitrariness in the choice of the element. Its properties are unimportant beyond the fact that it stands for an object. Picturing does not depend
2. To avoid misunderstanding, I note that the term isomorphism is used in interpretations
of picturing to characterize the relation between arrangements of representatives in the picture
and arrangements of objects in the world. Isomorphism might also be used to characterize a
mapping from one space to another that shows a fundamental identity of form between such
spaces. In that case form would be used to characterize a space in which various structures or
arrangements are possible.
51
upon the external properties of the elements that are the representatives.
Such a relation of representativeness, standing for rather than meaning, implies at least that we should ask not how such a correlation can
be established or by virtue of what a given element refers to an object,
but rather, given that elements stand for objects, how do we use such
representatives to make pictures of facts. (As in the case of political representatives, what ought to be important is how they represent their
constituencies, once they are elected.)
Wittgenstein showed his lack of interest in the nature of those representatives and their connection with things in his response to Russells
query on this matter: Again, the kind of relation of the constituents of
thought and of the pictured fact is irrelevant. It would be a matter of
psychology to nd it out.3
Thus Wittgenstein assumes the barest contact with the world, that we
bring words to the world. The picture reaches right out to the world, as
he says in 2.1511: The correlations are, as it were, the feelers of the pictures elements, with which the picture touches reality (2.1515). The
term feelers suggests that the touching tests how reality responds, seeking to feel it, to uncover it, or get a sense of it, rather than referring to an
already given reality.4
Let us consider another analogy suggested by Wittgenstein in propositions 2.15112.1513: [A picture] is laid against reality like a measure.
Only the end points of the graduating lines actually touch the object that
is to be measured. In measuring we do not ask what enables the ruler to
refer to the object. No property of the ruler itself determines what it represents. The ruler in itself says nothing about the object. Rather, the
ruler can be used in a certain way to determine a fact (the fact that the
object has such-and-such a length). I bring the ruler to reality, which is
3. LRKM, p. 72. P. M. S. Hacker, quoting this claim, confuses the relation of representativeness with that of meaning, which results in an unfounded criticism of Wittgensteins psychologistic tendencies in the Tractatus. See Insight and Illusion, pp. 3957.
4. I nd it extremely interesting that in Beyond the Pleasure Principle Freud uses the
same gure of feelers to express the activity of perception in relation to an external reality: It is
characteristic of [sense organs] that they deal with only very small quantities of external stimulation and only take in samples of the external world. They may perhaps be compared with feelers which are all the time making tentative advances towards the external world and then drawing back from it. S. Freud, Standard Edition, vol. 18, p. 28. In the case of both Freud and
Wittgenstein, what follows is a problematization of what it is for a human subject to have an
object.
52
Signs of Sense
not to say that the ruler is somehow isomorphic to reality, only that a
fact results from the encounter of the ruler with reality.
The gure of touching also makes clear that the object is not taken up
into what the picture says. It has representatives, but this is precisely
why it escapes being present there, in its essence. What there is to say
depends on the scale we bring to the object, and saying whatever we say
will be distinct from recovering the object.
B. Depicting
A picture depicts the reality it is about. It depicts a reality even though it
can be an incorrect representation of that reality. That it is about reality
has to do with the identity of form: What a picture must have in common with reality, in order to be able to depict itcorrectly or incorrectlyin the way it does, is its pictorial form (2.17).
We should bear in mind, from the account of objects and facts, the
sharp distinction between form and structure. Form is the possibility of
structure. The structure will determine the specic situation that is presented, but that it is a picture, that it depicts anything at all, is due to an
identity of form and not to an isomorphism of structure. There must be
something identical in a picture and what it depicts, to enable the one to
be a picture of the other at all (2.161). It should be noted that Wittgenstein speaks here of identity. He does not use weaker terms such as harmony, similarity, or agreement. At the level of form, there must be an
identity between the picture and the reality depicted, whether the picture
is correct or incorrect. This explains how a picture can be incorrect: the
form will be such as to enable us to construct a structure that does not
agree with reality and yet can still be about it, since it has the same form
as that reality. Placing representatives of objects in a background of form
will produce a way in which those are related in fact.
C. Presenting
A picture presents a situation in logical space, the existence and nonexistence of states of affairs (2.11). A picture, in itself, is a certain fact
(see 2.141). The picture, we should recall, is not an object. In the picture
there are elements that stand for objects, but the constitution of those elements is irrelevant to what the picture presents. The picture consists of
53
54
Signs of Sense
sense, is not needed to make something into a picture, in the sense of securing its relation to its subject matter. Indeed, enough of the intention
is implicit in the idea of having representatives for objects. We arbitrarily
choose certain terms with the intention that what we do with them
would stand for what happens to objects. But such an intention does not
make the elements function in such a way. There are various conditions
for the possibility of picturing which must come into play, such as an
identity of form, which is not ours to make. Insofar as we can speak of
the aboutness of the picture, it involves an identity of form.
The central precondition for picturing is what one might call the
background of the picturethe form. This pre-existence of the background of form has various consequences, which I want to start elaborating at an initial, intuitive level. We place elements in a space of form,
but it is form that makes them a fact. The factuality of the picture takes
care of itself. However we place elements in a space, an arrangement is
established; they present us with a fact in that space. One could also say
that there is no nonsense in a picture.5 There is no way of placing the elements so that nothing specic will result. There is also no vagueness in
a picture: the properties of the elements are unessential, the only important thing is their place, as representatives in a pre-given space of form,
and this arrangement is always a specic fact.
A picture is always contingent. There are no a priori pictures. When
we see something pictured (say, some elements in some spatial relation)
we can also see how the elements could be placed in a different position
(suppose we move this one to the right; I can see that it is possible when
I see the picture). Nothing in our visual space is necessarily where it is,
and the same is true of pictorial space. What makes a picture a picture is
identity of form, and form is the possibility of structure; hence whatever
is pictured could be otherwise than it is. It already stands in a space of
possibilities which is constituted by the form.
5. D. Pears seems to acknowledge this, but then retracts the claim in reecting on language:
once the systems for producing pictures has been set up, there is no risk that a would-be picture might make an impossible claim . . . false claims are possible but not nonsensical ones.
However, that is plainly not true of language, because it is not only possible but easy to produce
nonsensical strings of words. The False Prison, vol. 1, p. 121. Of course it is possible to have
nonsensical strings of words, but this just means that nonsense cannot be produced at the level
in which form comes into play; that is, there is no such thing as nonsense deriving from category mistakes. Indeed, a complete translation of the account of picturing, in particular the notion of form, to the level of language precisely shows that nonsense does not occur at the level
of form or at the level of the symbol.
55
D. Representing
A picture represents its subject from a position outside it. (Its standpoint is its representational form.) That is why a picture represents its
subject correctly or incorrectly (2.173). We might have learned something from the claim that there must be something identical in the picture and in the reality depicted, but why is it worth mentioning that a
picture represents its subject matter (Wittgensteins term is Objekt) from
a position outside it? What is the nature of the distance between the picture and what it aims atits subject matter? We have already established that there is an identity of form of depiction between the picture
and reality. Wittgenstein distinguishes between form of depiction and
form of representation. The former comes to express the identity with
reality, the latter the distancethe standpoint apart from the subject
represented.
The form of representation determines the possibilities of making
sense with a picture. The picture represents a sense. Those possibilities
are external to the reality depicted, insofar as they are possibilities of the
medium of representation.
The distinction can be further elaborated as follows: we can use the
picture, operate with the means of representation, in a way which is not
necessarily congruent with the form of depiction. A spatial picture presents a reality of the spatial form, but this form does not determine the
possibilities of using the picture to make a claim about reality. I can, for
instance, use such a picture to express the sense that things are not like
that. Negation is not a possibility in visual space, but it is an option of
construction in representational space. We can also say that the issue is
what we can do with the picture. In the case of presentation this is not
an option, for the way in which objects are combined presents that
things are combined in the same way. But precisely because there is a distance between the picture and the object, I can use a picture to express
56
Signs of Sense
anything in its representational space. Such use determines the standpoint of the picture with respect to the facts. It gives us directions as to
how to take what is presented. Such directions, the way of taking the
picture, are what Wittgenstein calls the sense of the picture.
Thus we distinguish between what a picture actually presents and
what it can be used for (can represent). Presenting involves how the arrangement of the elements makes a structure given the form of depiction; representing involves the way the picture itself is taken to state
something that might be other than what it presents.
We can use presented facts to represent other facts. For example, I can
use the spatial state of affairs that the picture presents to represent that
things are not like that. I can use a picture to represent the negation of a
state of affairs, but the spatial picture itself cannot present us with a negation.6 Wittgenstein emphasizes the distinction between what a picture
presents and what it can logically represent in the following formulations: A picture presents a situation in logical space, the existence and
non-existence of states of affairs (2.11); A picture represents a possible
situation in logical space (2.202). In other words, whereas presentation
directs us to how things are in fact in the picture, in representation we
can use that fact to make a possible situation, and take that possible situation to be how things are.
The form of representation is not necessarily the same as the form of
depiction. Let us call the former the space that is external to the picture,
and the latter the inner space. One can use a picture (represent a possible situation by means of it) without even knowing exactly what its inner form is. I take the picture wholesale, treating it as a fact, to represent
another fact. I think of the inner space of depiction as the form of objects, and the outer space of representation as the space of facts, namely
logical space. The split between objects and facts is thus reproduced at
6. Freud writes in Interpretation of Dreams: What representation do dreams provide for if,
because, just as, although, either-or, and all the other conjunctions without which we cannot understand sentences or speeches? . . . The incapacity of dreams to express those things
must lie in the nature of the psychical material out of which dreams are made. The plastic arts
of painting and sculpture labor, indeed, under a similar limitation as compared with poetry
which can make use of speech (Standard Edition, vol. 4, p. 312). Could we say that seeing the
world from the point of view of form, without bringing in the logical operation, opens us to a
dreamy aspect of reality? I will want to say something of the sort by showing the unsystematic
nature of meaning. The overdetermination of form in dreams or in painting is analogous to the
power of creation Wittgensteins text evokes in language.
57
58
Signs of Sense
thought. What is thinkable is possible too (3.02). Wittgenstein proceeds to identify the form of reality with the form of thought by turning
the thinking of a thought into a construction of possibilities of facts out
of given facts. Thinking a thought is an operation on facts, which is why
the form of thought and the form of reality are one and the same: in both
cases the form is that of facts.
A logical picture is the construction of a situation in logical space. It is
a construction of something being the case (and of something not being
the case). Logical space determines how we can take the picture to represent facts. This is also what leads Wittgenstein to say: It used to be
said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to
the laws of logic.The truth is that we could not say what an illogical
world would look like (3.031). Our understanding of what constitutes
facts in the world and our understanding of thinking, making sense, are
internally connected. Consider in this context the metaphor of coordinates he introduces, in which logic is to be thought of as the coordinate
system that allows us to represent possible facts:
It is as impossible to represent in language anything that contradicts
logic as it is in geometry to represent by its co-ordinates a gure that
contradicts the laws of space, or to give the co-ordinates of a point that
does not exist. (3.032)
59
nonagreement of the picture with reality. This relation between the logical structure of the picture and a fact is the truth relation. The pictorial
form is identical in both the picture and what it depicts, but there can be
correct and incorrect pictures.
The concept of form is what underlies our understanding of possibility, that is, in grasping the form of a picture we grasp what it is for it to be
true, and what it is for it to be false. The making of sense of a specic
claim presupposes a whole space of possibilities, a form. This is crucial:
the picture represents what is the case, but in doing so it allows us to determine also the possibilities of its falsity. We have not only a representation of what must be the case if the proposition is to be true, but also the
possibility of representing what is the case if it is to be false. We do not
merely say that all the rest of the facts make it false, but we can specify
what must be the case for it to be false. This is the point of working always within a given space of possibility determined by formtruth and
falsity are always determinate.
The adequation or agreement involved in truth is not a relation of absolute correspondence. The problem with a correspondence theory, as
Frege has pointed out, is that the relation of correspondence is conceived to be a real relation. It would then be possible to ask whether it is
true that it holds or not, and this would cause a regress in our determination of truth. Wittgenstein avoids that by making agreement depend
on a form that is always identical in both the proposition and reality. The
possibility of truth depends on a relation between the proposition and
reality, the pictorial relation, which is not a material relation (the forms
are identical); that is, we cannot ask whether the pictorial relation does
in fact hold between the sense and reality, since the very possibility of its
having a sense depends on having that identity of form. Truth is always a
relative, internal truth: it is an agreement given certain conditions, not a
fact of absolute agreement. Whether the picture is true or false, there
will be an internal connection with the world. Depending on whether
the picture is true or false, there will be different parts of the logical
space of the sense that will agree with the facts, but such agreement will
always exist. This is precisely the point of basing the agreement on an
identity of form and not of structure, which means that the possibility of
agreement is internal to the picture. As Wittgenstein puts it later, to say
that a proposition is either true or false is not like saying that all roses
are either yellow or red (6.11).
This account of truth leads us to appreciate that what is philosophi-
60
Signs of Sense
cally important is not the question concerning the relation of adequation, but rather the universe of form that conditions it. One might say
that there is a deeper notion of truth, which is that of the disclosure of
what things are, or of the form of the world. This distinction reveals yet
again Wittgensteins attempt to separate the perspective of facts from
that of objects. The question of disclosing or uncovering the form of objects is a completely different activity from assessing the agreement of
sense with reality. Wittgensteins account distinguishes between a propositional sense of truth and falsity, understood as the agreement or disagreement of structures with facts, and a more important idea of the unveiling of form, which is what allows representation at all. We will be led
through various stages and transformations of this idea of unveiling, but
it is in this idea that I locate the force of Wittgensteins account. He refers
us to a deeper level of identity between the subject and his world, which
is presupposed in the capacity to manipulate language in order to represent the world.
Signs of Sense
Wittgensteins account of picturing in general and of thought in particular leads us to examine more specically the conditions of language and
the nature of the linguistic sign. When making the transition to his elaboration of language, it is essential to keep in mind his account of depiction, especially since our object of study, the propositional sign, does not
look like a picture:
At rst sight a propositionone set out on the printed page, for exampledoes not seem to be a picture of the reality with which it is
concerned. But neither do written notes seem at rst sight to be a picture of a piece of music, nor do our phonetic notations (the alphabet)
to be a picture of our speech.
And yet these sign-languages prove to be pictures, even in the ordinary sense, of what they represent. (4.011)
We ask, then, how the pictorial character is translated at the level of the
linguistic sign. We must make sure that the translation retains all the elements of the account of picturing, and, in particular, we should pay attention to the way in which form is translated. To ask about form in language is to ask about the appearance of the symbol through the sign,
that is, about their difference as well as their essential relatedness.
Specifying the relation of sign and symbol will help address a confusion that might have been produced by the account of picturing. The
separation of the form of facts (logical space) from the form of objects
and the identication of representation with logical picturing might
have suggested a mode of access to objects and their form that com61
62
Signs of Sense
63
64
Signs of Sense
The proposition is, one might say, the propositional sign as it exhibits
the form of the thought in the medium of signs. It depends on the projection of form onto the medium of signs.
In order to rene the relation between thought, proposition, and
propositional sign, we must elaborate the notion of projection that links
them:
We use the perceptible sign of a proposition (spoken or written, etc.)
as a projection of a possible situation. The method of projection is to
think of the sense of the proposition. (3.11)
I assume that what Wittgenstein has in mind is the way a scale is transposed in musical notation. Thus if our invariant, our form, is the C-major scale, its natural expression in the standard musical notation does
not require any sharps or ats. If we now project it, starting from an-
65
66
Signs of Sense
Hence the projection determines how the form of a certain space will
be expressed in a completely new medium, with new signs or elements
of representation. Such a rule is not necessarily simple. Indeed, complex
constructions in one medium may be required to reect what appears
completely simple in another. But the apparent dissimilarity should not
obscure that what is at stake in projection is the invariance of form, the
common pattern required for depiction. The rule of projection reveals
how the form of one space can be recovered in another space.
Projection is the term used for the relation of translation between two
different systems of signs, but also for the transition from the pictorial
form to the space of signs. We apply the notion of projection to the relation between the proposition and the propositional sign as follows: the
projection translates into the medium of signs the essence of depiction,
the pictorial form. To nd the rule of projection is to recover through the
new medium the form which is essential to depiction. For Wittgenstein,
perspicuous expression is the recovery of the symbol, the way in which
signication that depends on the form of depiction appears through
signs. The symbol is an expression. It is the way in which form expresses
itself in the medium of signs.
Having thus characterized the notion of projection, we can now attempt to interpret the difcult propositions concerning the relation of
expression, projection, thought, proposition, and propositional sign:
We use the perceptible sign of a proposition (spoken or written, etc.)
as a projection of a possible situation.
The method of projection is to think of the sense of the proposition.
(3.11)2
I call the sign with which we express a thought a propositional
sign.And a proposition is a propositional sign in its projective relation to the world. (3.12)
A proposition includes all that the projection includes, but not what
is projected.
2. R. Rhees nds the translation of this proposition problematic: In other words, the
method of projection is what we mean by thinking or understanding the sense of the proposition. (Messrs. Pears and McGuinness read it differently, as though the remark were to explain
the expression method of projection here. I do not think that ts with what follows. And I
think projection which is a logical operation, is written to explain das Denken der SatzSinnes). See Discussions of Wittgenstein, p. 39. My reading supports his claim.
67
Therefore, though what is projected is not itself included, its possibility is.
A proposition, therefore, does not actually contain its sense, but
does contain the possibility of expressing it.
(The content of a proposition means the content of a proposition
that has sense.)
A proposition contains the form, but not the content, of its sense.
(3.13)
68
Signs of Sense
Wittgenstein gives a particularly vivid example to clarify the dependence of the propositional sign on a background of form:
The essence of a propositional sign is very clearly seen if we imagine
one composed of spatial objects (such as tables, chairs, and books) instead of written signs.
Then the spatial arrangement of these things will express the sense
of the proposition. (3.1431)
The spatial form is not an element of the scene but appears through the
arrangement of the elements. Similarly, the propositional sign is an ar-
69
rangement, a fact dependent on the space of form opened by the proposition. In a propositional sign aRb, what represents the relation of a to b
is not the fact that we have a sign for a, a sign for b, and a sign for the relation. This set of signs represents no sense; rather, what represents the
relation of the elements is the fact that the linguistic sign a stands in a
certain relation to the sign b:
Instead of, The complex sign aRb says that a stands to b in the relation R, we ought to put, That a stands to b in a certain relation
says that aRb. (3.1432)
Similarly, we should not say that the sign fa says that a is f, but rather,
that a stands to the right of f says that a is f.
Now, even as we consider such propositional signs as fa or aRb, which
do not contain logical constants, we must keep in mind that what is at
stake at the level of the propositional sign is the representation of facts.
Thus the sign itself need not make manifest the form of the objects but
only the fact of their relation. This is indeed the basis of the capacity of
representing any situation which we attribute to language. The facts that
are the propositional signs of our notation have the form of reality and
thus can represent any logical structures, that is, structures of the logical
form. Wittgenstein says in his Notebooks:
It can be said that, while we are not certain of being able to turn all situations into pictures on paper, still we are certain that we can portray
all logical properties of situations in a two-dimensional script.3
70
Signs of Sense
Signs of Sense
It is therefore necessary to draw a distinction between the sign and its arbitrary features on the one hand, and a symbol, what is essential to the
expression of the sense of the proposition, on the other. An elaboration
of the nature of the symbol cuts across the various contexts we have kept
separate: the proposition, the logical constants and quantication, as
well as names in relation to their meaning. Thus an investigation into
the nature of the propositional symbol will elucidate the general form of
the proposition (what is common to all sign languages); an investigation
71
72
Signs of Sense
into the nature of the symbols of logic (the logical constants and the
quantiers) will yield a deeper understanding of the emptiness of logic;
and an investigation into the signication of names will shed light on
the nature of analysis and the possibility of recognizing objects through
language. I will at rst ignore the differences between these contexts and
consider symbolism in general.
Wittgenstein initially introduces the distinction between the sign and
the symbol by considering the relation of the propositional sign to the
proposition. These considerations are later extended to include parts of
the proposition that are essential to expressing the sense. Hence the account of the proposition takes precedence over the account of the components of the proposition. Wittgenstein indeed begins his discussion of
symbols in general (of which the proposition is a special case) by stating
the above priority: Only propositions have sense; only in the nexus of a
proposition does a name have meaning (3.3). The priority he gives to
the context of the proposition can be interpreted in different ways.1
In determining meaning we go beyond the way in which names are
representatives of objects. Representativeness, as I have elaborated it in
the account of picturing, involves an arbitrary correlation of name and
object. Wittgensteins concern is how to go beyond this arbitrariness in
language, how to discover what is essential to signication, or how to
reveal through the use of signs in propositions the form that allows
signication. The form determines the symbol to which the sign belongs. Saying that a name, viewed as a symbol, has a form does not mean
that the name itself is complex. The form is internal to the name. It
1. This proposition brings to mind Freges context principle: Never to ask for the meaning
of a word in isolation, but only in the context of a proposition (Foundations of Arithmetic,
p. x). It is important, however, to distinguish Wittgensteins understanding from Freges. For
Frege the context principle does not instruct us how to nd the specic meaning of a sign but
rather directs us to its form or logical category. But determining the logical category of a sign
depends on grasping the kind of inferences that could be performed with propositions containing the sign. Thus the context principle refers not to a single proposition but to the network of
logical implications between different propositions. This is quite foreign to Wittgensteins picture, at least when it comes to specifying the mode of signication of the name of an object,
since form can be grasped in elementary propositions (that is, just as the form of objects appears in states of affairs), so the form of names will show up in the elementary proposition. The
elementary proposition is the expression whose constituents perspicuously contain their form
within themselves. Since elementary propositions do not stand in any inferential relations, the
context principle cannot have the same sense for Wittgenstein as it does for Frege.
73
Wittgensteins use of the term presuppose implies that one cannot characterize what a symbol is without having been given all the possible contexts in which it could occur.
A crucial point here is the analogy between Wittgensteins elaboration
of the notion of an expression and his understanding of objects through
their form.2 His insistence that an expression cannot be determined
apart from its possible combinations in propositions means that, in a
specic proposition, the expression contributes to a content only by virtue of having its form determined by a whole class of propositions. To
2. Compare 2.025, [Substance] is form and content, and 3.31, An expression is the mark
of a form and a content. One can now understand better Wittgensteins parenthetical remark
in his account of objects: (It is impossible for words to appear in two different roles: by themselves, and in propositions.).
74
Signs of Sense
This suggests that understanding what a symbol or an expression is constitutes the rst step in discovering how form appears in language, and
in particular how the form of objects appears. Just as objects reveal their
form by exhibiting their possibilities of combination with other objects,
so Wittgenstein suggests that in order to isolate an expression one has to
see the propositional contexts in which it could occur. Therefore it is
crucial to understand Wittgensteins idea of what precisely propositions
can have in common.
The form of a sign is shown by means of a whole class of propositionsby giving a characterization that captures that whole class. What
stands for that class is a variable whose range covers the kinds of propositions in which that expression can occur meaningfully:
[An expression] is therefore presented by means of the general form
of the propositions that it characterizes.
In fact, in this form the expression will be constant and everything
else variable. (3.312)
Thus an expression is presented by means of a variable whose values
are the propositions that contain the expression.
(In the limiting case the variable becomes a constant, the expression
becomes a proposition.)
I call such a variable a propositional variable. (3.313)
75
proposition. In general, this class too will be dependent on the meaning that our arbitrary conventions have given to parts of the original
proposition. But if all the signs in it that have arbitrarily determined
meanings are turned into variables, we shall still get a class of that
kind. This one, however, is not dependent on any convention, but
solely on the nature of the proposition. It corresponds to a logical
forma logical prototype [protopicture, Urbild].3 (3.315)
3. The translation of Urbild as prototype obscures the connection between Bild and Urbild,
and hence the relation between the account of the variable and quantication, and the account
of picturing. See below, p. 86.
4. Wittgenstein makes clear in 5.5265.5261 that the generalized proposition is as contentful as any other proposition: We can describe the world completely by means of fully generalized propositions . . . A fully generalized proposition, like every other proposition, is composite.
5. This contrast would then force on us the assumption of a metaphysical subject, which
would be responsible for providing meaning to the empty formalism.
76
Signs of Sense
away with all the components of meaning, leaving only the syntactical
possibilities of the signs. For instance, he writes: In logical syntax the
meaning of a sign should never play a role. It must be possible to establish logical syntax without mentioning the meaning of a sign: only the
description of expressions may be presupposed (3.33).6 But I read this
to mean precisely that everything that contributes to signication must
be grasped through the interrelation of propositions, by means of the
class that determines the expression. In other words, there is no need for
a further step in which meaning is specied, that is, there is no need to
interpret a formal syntax. Wittgenstein equates the symbol with the way
in which the sign signies or has meaning. Once a symbol has been determined, the issue of providing a meaning has also been solved.7
Let us now return to proposition 3.315 and ask once more about the
arbitrariness of meaning that Wittgenstein wants to get away from. This
arbitrariness can be thought of in terms of the notion of representativeness, which I elaborated in the account of picturing. The correlation that
is formed between a sign and the world in naming things is indeed arbitrary. This connection does not show what precisely allows the sign to
signify, that is, the identity of form that enables depicting. In order to
bring out that level of form, we must get away from the arbitrariness of
the relation of representativeness and ask about the combinatorial properties of the sign. This does not mean moving from the world to a merely
6. There are also good textual grounds on which to refrain from imposing on the text the
contrast between syntax and semantics, as it is usually understood. For instance, Wittgenstein
writes: In order to recognize a symbol by its sign we must observe how it is used with a sense
(3.326). A sign does not determine a logical form unless it is taken together with its logicosyntactical employment (3.327); If a sign is useless, it is meaningless. That is the point of
Occams maxim. (If everything behaves as if a sign had meaning, then it does have a meaning.)
(3.328).
7. This claim should be qualied, for the relation of representativeness has to be determined, but this relation is a condition of the very formation of the symbol. Indeed, the problems of meaninglessness do not derive from the properties of the symbol but from the lack of
this initial relation: Frege says that any legitimately constructed proposition must have a
sense. And I say that any possible proposition is legitimately constructed, and, if it has no
sense, that can only be because we have failed to give a meaning to some of its constituents.
(Even if we think that we have done so.) Thus the reason why Socrates is identical says nothing is that we have not given any adjectival meaning to the word identical. For when it appears
as a sign for identity, it symbolizes in an entirely different waythe signifying relation is a different onetherefore the symbols also are entirely different in the two cases: the two symbols
have only the sign in common, and that is an accident (5.4733).
77
formal symbolic system, for the form of depiction is identical in the picture and in the world. Thus by doing away with the arbitrariness of
meaning we can now perceive the fundamental identity between language and reality. Logical syntax, as Wittgenstein understands it, does
not merely deal with schemata of signs; it rather shows the way in which
the sign signies.
As with 3.315, a misreading of 3.3163.317 may suggest that Wittgenstein elaborates an arbitrary or conventional syntax which gives us the
power to stipulate what the sign signies:
What values a propositional variable may take is something that is
stipulated.
The stipulation of values is the variable. (3.316)
To stipulate values for a propositional variable is to give the proposition whose common characteristic the variable is.
The stipulation is a description of those propositions.
The stipulation will therefore be concerned only with symbols, not
with their meaning.
And the only thing essential to the stipulation is that it is merely a description of symbols and states nothing about what is signied.
How the description of the proposition is produced is not essential.
(3.317)
78
Signs of Sense
Even our symbols are the result of a certain arbitrariness in our choice of
means of representation. Take the example of negation: before reading
79
Wittgensteins account we might have been tempted to say that expresses the symbol of negation; we grasp the symbol when we see that
we can negate the proposition p by placing a in front of it. But
Wittgenstein shows us that we have not grasped a form in that way. The
essence of the symbol for which p stands can be grasped only by
considering what is common to the following signs of the notation expressing the negation of p: p, p, p, p.p,
pvp, and so on. The symbol is what is common to all those modes
of representing negation. It is a rule that characterizes the construction
of all the signs that could negate p:
But in p it is not that negates; it is rather what is common to all
signs of this notation that negate p.
That is to say the common rule that governs the construction of
p, p, pvp, p.p, etc. etc. (ad inf.) And this common
factor mirrors negation. (5.512)
This shows that grasping the symbol that p stands for involves
grasping the whole of the logical space of p. In order to know the symbol of negation, I must know that p and p signify the same
thing. Moreover I must know that p and p.p signify the same
thing. Thus when I know the essence of the symbol, I know various
things which we would normally say follow from p (or are logically
equivalent with it).
Wittgenstein makes a similar point concerning conjunction and disjunction:
We might say that what is common to all symbols that afrm both p
and q is the proposition p.q; and that what is common to all symbols
that afrm either p or q is the propositions pvq. (5.513)
These last examples show very clearly that determining the symbol does
not merely give the syntactically possible combinations of signs but
what we would call logical relations of content. To elaborate the symbol
means to bring out the internal properties that determine what an expression is. We should expect then a close connection between such an
account and Wittgensteins elaboration of how internal relations and
properties appear in language, his account of formal concepts, which begins in 4.122 with an apparent reversion to a discussion of ontology:
80
Signs of Sense
Wittgenstein calls concepts purporting to signify such internal properties formal concepts and distinguishes them from concepts proper. The
essence of Wittgensteins account of the symbol is that we are given the
possibilities of combination, the combinatorial space, when we are given
the symbol. This applies to the proposition as a whole as well as to the
various component parts. Wittgenstein warns against the confusion that
may result from thinking that the possibilities of combination that are
internal to the symbol are something that we add to itthat stand in an
external relation to the symbol rather than in an internal one. The result
of such a confusion, the treatment of a formal concept as a real property,
is the generation of nonsensical propositions purporting to use that concept:
So one cannot say, for example, There are objects, as one might say,
There are books. And it is just as impossible to say, There are 100 objects, or, There are o objects.
And it is nonsensical to speak of the total number of objects.
81
The various signs such as object, fact, complex are used in philosophers propositions as real concepts (indeed Wittgenstein himself uses
all those concepts in the opening of the Tractatus). But he insists that at
the symbolic level there are no component terms that such signs belong
tono things that they signify.
How do we use language to talk about such formal properties? We can
do it insofar as we can bring out how in language the internal relations
between propositions show those formal and structural properties:
The existence of an internal property of a possible situation is not
expressed by means of a proposition: rather, it expresses itself in the
proposition representing the situation, by means of an internal property of that proposition. (4.124)
The existence of an internal relation between possible situations expresses itself in language by means of an internal relation between the
propositions representing them. (4.125)
The formal concept is, properly speaking, the mark of an internal relation between propositions belonging to the same space. It is thus represented in language by means of a whole class of interrelated propositions. Some such classes can be arranged in what Wittgenstein calls a
formal series. The ordering reveals the form common to the propositions in that class. Wittgenstein gives the example of the successor in
4.1273:
If we want to express the conceptual notation the general proposition b is the successor of a, then we require an expression for the general term of the series of forms
aRb,
(x)aRx.xRb,
(x,y)aRx.xRy.yRb.
82
Signs of Sense
Such a feature is brought out by means of the use of a propositional variable whose values belong to the class of propositions that have that feature in common.8
Just as we considered what happens to formal concepts when they are
used as though they were real concepts, so we can consider ways in
which structural properties are treated as though they were real ones.
Structural properties have to do with the logical connections between
propositions. Thus to treat structural properties as real properties results
in what we would call logical propositions (tautologies and contradictions).
That a certain proposition follows from another or contradicts it is not
a fact about such propositions but an internal relation between them.
For instance, it is part of the symbol p.q that p follows from it; or to return to an example we have considered before, an essential feature of the
symbol p is that propositions such as p follow from it. As Wittgenstein puts it: One could say that negation must be related to the logical place determined by the negated proposition. That p contradicts
p is not external to the nature of p. To think of logical laws as contentful
propositions would purport to turn that internal relation into a statable
fact and would reveal a fundamental misunderstanding as to how formal
relations are shown:
The fact that the propositions of logic are tautologies shows the formallogicalproperties of language and the world.
The fact that a tautology is yielded by this particular way of connecting its constituents characterizes the logic of its constituents.
If propositions are to yield a tautology when they are connected in
a certain way, they must have certain structural properties. So their
yielding a tautology when combined in this way shows that they possess these structural properties. (6.12)
8. It is no coincidence that Wittgenstein develops his understanding of the variable in both
the account of symbolism and that of formal concepts. In the account of symbolism the variable is necessary to express the whole combinatorial space that belongs to the symbol, which is
precisely the reason why it can be seen as the proper representation of what Wittgenstein calls a
formal concept: Every variable is the sign for a formal concept (4.1271). It would seem that
not every variable or formal concept can be represented by means of a formal series. Indeed, in
5.501 Wittgenstein characterizes three ways of xing a variable by describing the propositions
it stands for, the last of which is the giving of a formal series. (I thank Michael Knemer for very
helpful criticisms and comments regarding earlier attempts to interpret Wittgensteins idea of a
formal concept and of generality.)
83
A correct understanding of symbolism also shows the problematic nature of Russells theory of types. Wittgensteins account of the symbol
demonstrates that a function must contain within itself a characteriza9. One could also say that a structural property is shown by tautologies and contradictions,
whereas a formal property can only be shown by a class of propositions that share that internal
property.
84
Signs of Sense
This argument emphasizes the point that a symbol is dened through its
possibilities of combination. Wittgenstein does not need to introduce a
special rule for distinguishing the inner and the outer Fs. It is part of
what they are: they are dened in part by the kind of arguments they
take. One could say that the syntax takes care of itself, for it is a logical
impossibility to construct an expression F(F(fx)) where the two Fs are
the same symbol. We can of course have such a string of signs, but this
identity of sign says nothing about the symbol.10 We must never confuse
the level of signs and the level of symbols. It makes sense to speak of a
confusion at the level of signs, but there is no such thing as a mistake in
the order of the symbol. There can therefore be no rules for the proper
combination of symbols, for symbols are internally related to possibilities of combination.
Finally, let us consider the consequences of this account of the symbol
for the nature of logical constants, starting with an elaboration of Wittgensteins insight concerning the theory of types. If he were to take logi10. The argument Wittgenstein deploys against Russells theory of types could also be used
against Freges elaboration of the distinction between concept and object. In particular, what is
problematic is Freges identication of the complete proposition with an object, that is, a truth
value, which precisely allows a construction such as F(F(fx)) where the rst application of F to
some object produces once more the type of argument that F itself could take.
85
The analogy between form and a space might help us understand this
distinction. If we think of form as a space, then what is essential in a specic proposition is revealed through its connection with every other
possible structure in that space. That is, a certain possibility of movement or transition within that space from one structure to another is
crucial. This means that all these structures must share a procedure for
transition from one to the other: this is the operation which can take us
from one structure to another.
86
Signs of Sense
Insofar as form is constituted through the internal relations of propositions, we can speak of cases in which that internal relation is shown by
means of an operation that takes one proposition as a basis and another
of that class as its result. The concept of the operation is then intimately
connected to the notion of a formal concept:
We can determine the general term of a series of forms by giving its
rst term and the general form of the operation that produces the next
term out of the proposition that precedes it. (4.1273)
It is crucial to realize that the occurrence of an operation has no correlate at the level of meaning. The operation is not part of what we speak
about in the proposition, but is operative in making the transition in a
space of internal relations. In itself the occurrence of an operation means
nothing, for it can vanish. Sometimes a repeated application can cancel
previous applications of the operation; this, for instance, is what happens in the case of the equivalence of p and p. The fact that the operation can be canceled shows most clearly that it is not a component
expression of the sense. Insofar as these operations do not in themselves
transform the space of signication, they can be repeated or applied repeatedly.
At this point we are nally in a position to ll in a lacuna in my previous account of logical constants, concerning Wittgensteins understanding of the quantier. What I emphasized in Wittgensteins conception of
a picture is the pre-existence of a background of form which conditions
87
Signs of Sense
While we have gained some insight into the nature of logical signs and
the existence of formal and structural relations, we still need to determine the symbolic properties of names, that is, how to analyze language
into elementary propositions. Wittgensteins account of symbolism enables us to address the question of analysis.
Indeed, Wittgenstein gives an initial statement of the relation of symbolism to the question of analysis immediately after he introduces the
notion of the symbol:
A sign is what can be perceived of a symbol. (3.32)
So one and the same sign (written or spoken, etc.) can be common
to two different symbolsin which case they will signify in different
ways. (3.321)
Our use of the same sign to signify two different objects can never
indicate a common characteristic of the two, if we use it with two different modes of signication. For the sign, of course, is arbitrary. So we
could choose two different signs instead, and then what would be left
in common on the signifying side? (3.322)
89
Such statements, read in isolation, might suggest that Wittgenstein is involved in the same project as Frege and Russell after allthat of replacing ordinary language with a logically perfect one. For Wittgenstein,
however, the problematic nature of everyday language pertains to the
level of signs and not to that of symbols. This is a crucial point, since it
directs analysis to make perspicuous the form of that very sense which
we make in ordinary language, rather than to replace ordinary language
with an ideal or perfect language.1 Wittgenstein is concerned with replacing signs rather than with constructing a symbolism. He does not
1. Freges conceptual notation is primarily concerned with the language of science. In his
view ordinary language has an extremely problematic status: If it is one of the tasks of philosophy to break the domination of the word over the human spirit by laying the misconceptions
that through the use of language often almost unavoidably arise concerning the relation between concepts and by freeing thought from that with which only the means of expression of
ordinary language, constituted as they are, saddle it, then my ideography, further developed for
these purposes, can become a useful tool for the philosopher. (In J. van Heijenoort, Frege and
Gdel, p. 7.) In Freges view a conceptual notation is necessary for a stable scientic enterprise.
Science would be threatened with innumerable confusions unless a precise syntax for its language were laid down once and for all. Everyday language is full of symbolical confusions.
Frege sometimes expresses himself in such a way as to imply that language requires our help to
function properly. One might say that the whole project of the Foundations of Arithmetic is motivated by the possibility of mathematical catastrophe. It is this idea of a conceptual notation
and its attendant idea of logic as the standard and foundation of meaningfulness that Wittgenstein attacks.
90
Signs of Sense
91
92
Signs of Sense
But how is the world expressed by means of logic, without logics being
part of the world? Wittgenstein often refers to this mode of expression as
mirroring.
How can logicall-embracing logic, which mirrors the worlduse
such peculiar crotchets and contrivances? Only because they are all
3. NB, p. 10.
93
The notion of mirroring emphasizes that form is expressed by a reecting surface. This means that we do not immediately express the world
by means of the signs we choose, but that our linguistic activity results
in that innitely ne network of interrelated signs, of surfaces, in which
the world is reected. We have seen how this idea is developed in Wittgensteins account of symbolism, where the symbol is related to the recognition of a class of internally related propositions which express its
form. The notion of mirroring further suggests that we need not go
beneath the surface of language to recognize objects. Objects appear
through the recognition of internal relations in the network formed by
our use of language. They are not mysterious hidden entities, but wholly
in view.
There is thus a clear division between the means of logical representation on the one hand, and what shows itself through our constructions,
what there is in the world, on the other. Indeed, it is possible to perfectly
express or show things, in their essence, without there being any correspondence between an element in the proposition and the internal properties of the thing. This means, then, that Wittgensteins concept of an
adequate notation is a notation that will allow constructions through
4. It is interesting that the locution mirror of the world occurs in Schopenhauer, and,
given Wittgensteins acquaintance with his work, it might very well be related to his thought on
the matter. Schopenhauer speaks of ideas rather than representations as being mirrors of the
world: Man . . . is the most complete phenomenon of the will, and, as was shown in the second
book, in order to exist, this phenomenon had to be illuminated by so high a degree of knowledge that even a perfectly adequate repetition of the inner nature of the world under the form of
representation became possible in it. This is the apprehension of the Ideas, the pure mirror of
the world. See The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1, pp. 287288. We can schematically
suggest a parallel between the Wittgensteinian thing and the Schopenhauerian idea, which is
the expression of the will in experience.
94
Signs of Sense
which the forms of objects will show. It does not mean in any way that
the form of the signs will be the form of the objects.
We can now attempt to see how this fundamental ideathat logical
constants and signs that stand for objects constitute two separate domainsis expressed in the fundamental principle of inquiry. The latter
seems to demand that the logical be separated from the empirical, a separation that is commonplace in philosophy. What then is the radical innovation in Wittgensteins view of the matter?
First, consider the odd distinction between can and must be possible without more ado in Wittgensteins formulation of the fundamental
principle: his claim that when a question can be decided by logic at all, it
must be possible to decide it without more ado. Wittgenstein is not
warning us against confusing a supposed logical law with an empirical
generalization (for instance, mistaking the principle of nonmathematical induction for a logical principle). He assumes that logic can be
strictly delimited from factual statements. He is concerned with the very
nature of logical as opposed to scientic investigation. It is this necessity
of separating modes of inquiry that opens the question of the relation
between can and must be possible without more ado in Wittgensteins statement of the fundamental principle. The principle concerns,
then, our conceptions of the nature and possibilities of logical investigation. Thus it will also have implications for the nature and possibility of
philosophical work.
The fundamental principle seems to warn us against confusing logical
work with empirical work, that is, against dening the tasks of philosophy in a way that would fail to distinguish between the logical and empirical modes of inquiry, as if logical investigation could be conducted
like a scientic inquiry. Unlike Freges stricture against mixing empirical
or psychological observations with logical ones, Wittgensteins concern
here is with the tendency to rely on what properly belongs to the grammar of scientic investigation when attempting to describe the possibility of work in logic.
But how can the grammar of a scientic question be distinguished
from that of a logical investigation? The grammar of science involves the
concept of hypothesis, thus a space of possible options among which
something can be discovered to be the case. Moreover, the concept of a
scientic inquiry also involves the possibility of error, and hence we
have to assume the responsibility for determining the truth. Unless we
do something, take steps and make decisions, truth will not be discov-
95
ered, but it is this task that also opens up the possibility of error. The
task of science further assumes the possibility of classication and hierarchy, the difference between the general and the specic, and all the
work demanded by this mode of thought: the problems of reclassifying,
asking how many kinds of things of a certain species there are, asking
questions about the domain of application of general laws, and having to
revise them in the light of particular cases.
Furthermore, the notion of incompleteness is inherent to the concept
of scientic inquiry, allowing one to determine a direction of research
and questioning without coming up with complete answers. We can undertake scientic work without aiming to complete science at every
step, and without fearing that this incompletion would show what we
have done to be nonscience. Issues can be left open to further work;
questions can be undecided yet statable. Every scientic question can
be answered, since the possibility of a sensical question involves laying out a space of options among which the answer can be found. But
nding the answer might require some more work. This is the gap between can and must be possible without more ado. Scientic inquiry
can pose a question which it can solve, but it cannot solve it without
more ado. Put differently, to ask a question is always to ask about alternatives in a given framework or space of possibilities. This is why there
can be an answer; this is also why it takes some doing to arrive at the
answer.
In logic no such gap can exist. As Wittgenstein puts it at the very beginning of the Tractatus: Nothing in the province of logic can be merely
possible. Logic deals with every possibility and all possibilities are its
facts (2.0121). This is why in a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic (5.473). This is not a psychological remark but a grammatical one. Because logic is the condition of the possibility of facts, it is
a eld where one cannot go wrong; where there is no place for alternatives of true and false.
The various possibilities associated with the form of scientic work
are dismissed in logic:
All numbers in logic stand in need of justication.
Or rather, it must become evident that there are no numbers in logic.
There are no pre-eminent numbers. (5.453)
In logic there is no co-ordinate status, and there can be no classication.
96
Signs of Sense
In logic there can be no distinction between the general and the specic. (5.454)
To this feature logic owes its a priori character and its completeness
It is possibleindeed possible even according to the old conception
of logicto give in advance a description of all true logical propositions. (6.125)
Hence there can never be surprises in logic. (6.1251)
97
98
Signs of Sense
ents of reality. For Wittgenstein this is not a question that can be resolved a priori; indeed, the attempt to resolve it a priori results in nonsense. What is analysis then? And if it is not what it seemed to be, then
what is the task of philosophy? Can there be philosophical logic?8
The Tractatus repeats emphatically that it does not make sense to ask
questions about the ultimate form of reality:
It would be completely arbitrary to give any specic form. (5.554)
It is supposed to be possible to answer a priori the question whether
I can get into a position in which I need the sign for a 27-termed relation in order to signify something. (5.5541)
But is it really legitimate to ask such a question? Can we set up a
form of sign without knowing whether anything can correspond to it?
Does it make sense to ask what there must be in order that something can be the case? (5.5542)
If I cannot say a priori what elementary propositions there are, then
the attempt to do so must lead to obvious nonsense. (5.5571)
99
space of possibilities it can occur in. That space of possibility is the form
of the object. The apparent independence of this space of possibility
from language, which is suggested by the ontological tone of the opening of the Tractatus, is already qualied in some of Wittgensteins parenthetical remarks throughout his discussion of objects by his introducing
the linguistic parallel to the strictly ontological language. It is his discussion of picturing that reveals the fundamental identity of language and
world, when he claims that the very possibility of making sense depends
on an identity of form (the depicting form) of language and world.
The fundamental identity of language and world can be interpreted in
different ways. We may be tempted to understand it as a form of realism
according to which objects underlie the functioning of language. In this
view, language must reproduce in itself the form of those independent
objects in order to be able to function; that is, although the objects
would not be independent of states of affairs, they would have some
cluster of internal properties which would completely determine what
they are. But, most importantly, they would in a certain sense be independent of language, insofar as they could be independent of particular
uses of language.
In Wittgensteins understanding of language, however, the object is
not an entity existing entirely in itself underlying the functioning of language in general, but the correlate of a determinate act of sense-making:
The requirement that simple signs be possible is the requirement that
sense be determinate (3.23).
Wittgenstein has been criticized for failing to provide any examples of
simple objects, as though he had some kind of argument for the existence of simples but had no idea how to conduct a specic analysis and
what its outcome would be. He supposedly turns objects into mysterious entities hidden deep beneath the surface of language, maybe never
to be discovered. But his correlation of the possibility of simple signs
with the very determinacy of sense points to an opposite conclusion:
that objects are not hidden, mysterious entities but lie at the surface,
completely tied to the sense we produce. It is for this very reason that
they do not form part of the progress of the Tractatus.
Objects appear in the context of making perspicuous determinate acts
of sense-making. They are not presupposed by language in general, but
are correlates of concrete uses of language. In the Notebooks Wittgenstein makes this idea very clear: All I want is only for my meaning to
100
Signs of Sense
101
the sense that is implicit in them, but rather how to endow them with
determinate sense. It is our decision to take them in a particular way that
makes denite sense. However, this beliefthat ordinary language is defective, inherently vaguearises from a misunderstanding of the notion
of making sense. It is precisely Wittgensteins understanding that we
only say how things are, not what they are, that leads him to contextualize objects and to assert the determinacy of sense: Objects can only be
named. Signs are their representatives. I can only speak about them: I
cannot put them into words. Propositions can only say how things are, not
what they are (3.221).
In order to recognize that ordinary language is in perfect logical order,
that language requires no logical work, we have to maintain the distinction between showing objects and stating facts. Keeping these levels
strictly apart allows us to avoid various misleading pictures of problems
with everyday language for which logical work is required.
In general we could say that the very notion that there are logical
problems in everyday language depends on associating logic with the
constitution of objects and not merely with facts. When Wittgenstein
thinks of logic as altogether the basic condition of any sign-language,
and of such sign-language as concerned with picturing facts, he shows
that ordinary language, to the extent that it is a sign-language, is in perfect logical order. This means that any problems that may arise with regard to ordinary language are only those concerned with dispelling ambiguity of signs, and not any intrinsic problems concerning symbols.
Now we can sketch the way in which the Tractatus addresses the problem raised by the preceding reections on analysis and logical work. The
task of completing logic must be kept quite separate from the domain of
work concerned with applying logic. The question of logic has to do
with the level of the linguistic sign, whereas understanding the form of
reality derives neither from the structure of the sign nor from logic.
Logic allows us to make sense with signs; it determines the possibility of
language, but this does not mean that its forms are the forms of objects.
Hence, on the one hand, the general form of the proposition has to be
provided, that is, the logical syntax of any sign-language. On the other
hand, all questions concerning the nature of the thingsthe ontological
questionshave to be left open as inherently beyond the scope of philosophical work. In particular they are beyond the task the Tractatus set
itself.
102
Signs of Sense
The Tractatus, then, proposes a kind of truce: the general form of the
proposition can and must be completely characterized, but the inner relations that constitute the richness or complexity of experience, of the
world, are not something we can arrive at a priori. The uncovering of the
object constitutes a completely different dimension of thinking.
We are now in a position to assess the last of Wittgensteins three fundamental propositions cited earlier and show its intimate connection to
the other two:
In fact, all the propositions of our everyday language, just as they
stand, are in perfect logical order.That utterly simple thing, which
we have to formulate here, is not a likeness of the truth, but the truth
itself in its entirety.
(Our problems are not abstract, but the most concrete that there
are). (5.5563)
Signs of Sense
This proposition stands out from the rest of the text. It contains concepts such as the human organism that seem to belong to the repertoire
of the later Wittgenstein, anticipating his understanding of forms of life.
103
104
Signs of Sense
105
106
Signs of Sense
107
life or the organism and everyday language. Usually we think of the use
of everyday language as indicating an average existence, a way of taking
things merely as familiar, failing to recognize their internal constitution.
Wittgenstein points out that it is everyday language that gives us the
proper eld of application of signs and allows us to recognize meaning.
It is only in everyday language that the enormous complexity of meaning in language can be recognized. Rather than set everyday language
aside to gain the recognition of meaning, this dimension can be opened
only in everyday language, insofar as language is taken as part of the human organism. The everyday is where things can appear meaningful,
presenting possibilities for me, becoming part of my world.
We may be misled by Wittgensteins comparison of language to clothing that does not reveal the real form of the body.
Language disguises thought. So much so, that from the outward form
of the clothing it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath
it, because the outward form of the clothing is not designed to reveal
the form of the body, but for entirely different purposes.
108
Signs of Sense
It is tempting, yet in my view misguided, to read Wittgenstein as implying that the problem has to do with everyday language and would be
avoided in an ideal language. Let us recall his insistence that in fact, all
the propositions of everyday language, just as they stand, are in perfect
logical order (5.5563). The problem is, rather, that this order is not immediately perspicuous. But this lack of immediacy is a feature of every
language we construct, including a so-called ideal language, namely a
language whose syntactical means of expression would be clearly displayed in the signs. Language in use, language that has a life and is not
merely an articial construct, will always manifest this gap between the
making of sense and the recovery of what constitutes our human world.
Meaning is not ours to make. Hence the level of signicant communication as such is impossible to anticipate, but can only be recovered
through what shows itself in language. Our ability to make sense is an
intrinsic part of our being in a human world, and that world is accessible
through its reection in language; it must be recognized after the fact.
The Tractatus establishes a sharp distinction between facts and objects, between what we can do when we investigate facts, make hypotheses, ask ourselves how things are, and give answers of the form this is
how things are on the one hand, and the recognition of meaning on the
other, the realization of what things are. As we have seen, Wittgenstein
stresses that it does not make sense to ask questions about the ultimate
form of reality.
It would be completely arbitrary to give any specic form. (5.554)
If I cannot say a priori what elementary propositions there are, then
the attempt to do so must lead to obvious nonsense. (5.5571)
This does not mean that the application of logic decides which among
all possible elementary propositions are true, but rather that it gives the
109
constitution of elementary propositions. Elementary propositions consist of objects, and the form of objects is what spans the possibility of
our human world and any world we can humanly imagine. This means
that the grammar of reality, what determines the possibility of our world,
cannot be given a priori, once and for all, systematically and in advance
of our encounter with experience. The grammar of reality must be recognized without anything to go by but what we are willing and unwilling to say in language, in judging the world. My emphasis on recognition as constitutive of meaning therefore accords with this afrmation of
ordinary language, of what we already have, and the critique of any
metaphysical attempt at grounding meaning, reducing a priori the nature of the possible.5
Wittgenstein repeats this theme, which will become so central to his
later thinking, in Some Remarks on Logical Form:
Now we can only substitute a clear symbolism for the unprecise one by
inspecting the phenomena which we want to describe, thus trying to
understand their logical multiplicity. That is to say, we can only arrive
at a correct analysis by what might be called the logical investigation of
the phenomena themselves, i.e. in a certain sense a posteriori, and not
by conjecturing about a priori possibilities. One is often tempted to ask
from an a priori standpoint: What, after all, can be the forms of atomic
propositions, and to answer, e.g. subject, predicate, and relational
propositions with two or more terms further, perhaps propositions relating predicates and relations to one another, and so on. But this, I believe, is mere playing with words. An atomic form cannot be foreseen.
And it could be surprising if the actual phenomena had nothing more
to teach us about their structure.6
110
Signs of Sense
111
ties of advance and discovery, also explains his distaste for Russells construction of the external world and later for Carnaps Aufbau project.
This is also the reason that thinking in terms of meta-languages does not
resolve the issues raised by Wittgensteins notion of showing (as Russell
proposes in his introduction to the Tractatus, or Carnap in his Logical
Syntax of Language). This approach completely misses Wittgensteins intention in introducing and using that term.
Showing is not intuition, in the sense of a special recognitional capacity. It does not mean that analysis comes to an end with an intuition of
what the world is really like. Rather, it is to be thought of as an acknowledgment of the conditions of saying, which means the complete presence of those conditions.
Coming into presence is the way things show.7 One can speak here of
presentness, in the sense that nothing can happen in the sphere of conditions. All happenings, all facts are determinations of the conditions
(Wittgenstein calls them congurations of objects). This sense of an everlasting present can be the basis for the visual analogy between the recognition of possibilities and showing. Showing depends on the absolute
cancellation of any hiddenness, the absence of deep structure. Conditions appear completely; there is no partial achievement or things left for
future inquiry. Now we can discern the close connection between the
nature of showing and the fundamental importance Wittgenstein attributes to everyday language:
In fact, all the propositions of our everyday language, just as they
stand, are in perfect logical order.That utterly simple thing, which
we have to formulate here, is not a likeness of the truth, but the truth
itself in its entirety. (Our problems are not abstract, but the most concrete that there are.) (5.5563)
The note of urgency in this assertion arises from the perception that
such a relation to everyday language is of concern to the subject, is related to the assumption of subjectivity.
7. I put it this way in order to form an initial connection between this discussion and
Wittgensteins sense that presentness is grace, as when he says, eternal life belongs to those
who live in the present (6.4311).
Signs of Sense
The mode in which Wittgenstein presents the discovery of what there is,
the form of objects, involves a dimension of recognition, acknowledgment, or appropriation of what is given in language. This in turn raises
the question of the relation between subject and world. What is it for the
subject to assume or avoid the limits that must be recognized in language? Is it possible to think of the subject in terms of the very movement of appropriation and avoidance? In Wittgensteins elaboration of
the possibility of claiming the world to be my world, appropriation appears as a dimension of ontology.
At the outset note a structural feature of Wittgensteins account of the
subject, which links his appearance to the recovery of what cannot be
anticipated: the form of experience. Wittgensteins account of the subject starts in 5.54, stops abruptly in 5.55 with a rather long discussion of
the relation of logic to its application, and returns to the subject in 5.6.
This insertion of matters seemingly unrelated to the question of the subject gives us in fact a crucial clue to Wittgensteins approach. The initial
discussion concerns how not to speak of the subject, that is, it shows the
nonexistence of the thinking subject. It opens with what may be considered a formulation of the general relation of representation: In the general propositional form propositions occur in other propositions only as
bases of truth-operations (5.54). The disappearance of the thinking
subject therefore seems to be closely linked to the proper understanding
of the most general form of the proposition, of what can be given in advance of experience. The reappearance of the subject, that is, the way to
speak of the subject in philosophy, follows the assertion that the specic
forms of elementary propositions cannot be given a priori. Here the re112
113
b
a
a
b
a
b
a
114
Signs of Sense
as a cube; and all similar phenomena. For we really see two different
facts. (5.5423)
We should resist the temptation to explain such phenomena by assuming the existence of a subject who can change his attention in relation to
a self-same object: if the object does not change, then it must be something in the subject that changes. This line of reasoning falsely assumes
an independent subject standing in relation to objects. Wittgenstein,
however, argues that what we are tempted to call seeing the same object
with different subjective attitudes is precisely seeing different facts.
What is grasped is not the object as such but relations of constituents
given a certain background of form.
The appearance of the subject, then, does not involve the usual way of
associating subjectivity and the realm of representation, but rather involves what I shall call the appropriation of the form of experience. This
is how I intend to approach the series of propositions that reintroduce
the subject as a concern for philosophy (5.65.641).
Wittgenstein writes: The limits of my language mean the limits of my
world (5.6). Note here the sudden appearance of the fundamental concepts limit and world and of the possessive pronoun my in relating
those concepts to the subject. Any interpretation of Wittgensteins understanding of the subject must consider his specic use of these concepts.
An initial elaboration of the concept of world would introduce some
idea of connectedness, of unity, of things taken as a whole. We should
distinguish this concept of totality, or world as a limited whole, from
various other ideas associated with the concept. Wittgenstein does not
use world to mean the universe, or nature as a systematic whole obeying physical laws. Such an understanding would think of the world and
limits through the form of the factual. He seeks rather to separate the
concept of world and limits from the factual, which is always capable of
being localized, of being distinguished from other possibilities in the
same space. A fact is always this as opposed to that; it is logic, with its
eithers and ors, that establishes the separability characteristic of the
realm of the factual. This is made clear by proposition 5.61:
Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.
So we cannot say in logic, The world has this in it, and this, but not
that.
For that would appear to presuppose that we were excluding certain
115
possibilities, and this cannot be the case, since it would require that
logic should go beyond the limits of the world; for only in that way
could it view those limits from the other side as well.
We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we
cannot say either.1
At rst sight it might appear as if Wittgenstein viewed the subject as captive of his own sense-making, unable ever to break away from the veil of
representation. We would thus read him as afrming, in contrast to his
later self, the essential privacy of meaning, and we would interpret the
parenthetical remark in 5.62 as positing a language which I alone can
understand, a private language, or a private ground for language. But
this remark should also be read as the claim that it is in language alone
that I reach understanding; I understand nothing but language.3 Indeed,
Wittgenstein intends here to recast the truth of solipsism: For what the
solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said, but makes itself
manifest (5.62). The solipsist, as it were, means well (meinen), but in
1. I note in passing that the last sentence of proposition 5.61 bears some resemblance to
proposition 7. Although there are important differences between the formulations, their similarity testies to the importance of the moment. On this issue see my Chapter 10 below.
2. Signicantly, for Frege and Russell logic emerges as the most general science. It does not
incorporate the concept of totality.
3. See J. Hintikka, On Wittgensteins Solipsism, in Copi and Beard (eds.), Essays on Wittgensteins Tractatus, pp. 157162.
116
Signs of Sense
effect his way of expressing himself completely misses the mark; he fails
to mean (bedeuten) the limits of the world.
Nonetheless, Wittgensteins contrast between saying and manifestation might in itself cause a further misreading, as if there were some understanding that went beyond language and, for that reason, could never
be shared. Although Wittgenstein indeed recognizes a certain truth to
solipsism, a sense of isolation tied to the advent of subjectivity, this must
be understood in terms of a dimension of being in language. How, then,
can we avoid the aporia formed by the impossibility of saying the limits
of language and the need to avoid positing an understanding beyond
language? What are the limits of language?
It is crucial to note that Wittgenstein speaks of the limits of language
as meaning (bedeuten) the limits of the world. This is precisely the reverse of the solipsistic predicament, which turns representation into a
screen veiling our access to the real. Our interpretation of Wittgensteins
differentiation of sense and meaning must be brought to bear on the understanding of limits in language. Limits are recognized in the realm of
meaning, where language and objects are brought together rather than
separated. The body of meaning emerges at the limits, manifesting the
shared origin of subject and world.
Wittgensteins concept of limit cannot be understood in terms of the
representation of the world. From the point of view of representation
there is no limit whatsoever. This is the point of Wittgensteins analogy
between the visual eld and the eld of experience as such.
Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be found?
You will say that this is exactly like the case of the eye and the visual
eld. But really you do not see the eye.
And nothing in the visual eld allows you to infer that it is seen by an
eye. (5.633)
For the form of the visual eld is surely not like this
Eye
(5.6331)
117
Picture and sight are indeed made for each other. One of the consequences of Wittgensteins account of representation was the claim that
no proposition is a priori. An a priori proposition would be a limit proposition, for it would give a denite and necessary form to the possibility
of experience. There is no a priori picture, just as there is no limit to the
visual eld. Hence the impossibility of locating the subject in the world
is not merely the impossibility of recognizing an object in space and
time that is a genuine subject. More importantly, it is the impossibility of
representing limits to the world, that is, of having a complete and systematic account of its form.
Traditionally, since Kant at least, the unity of the subject has been correlated with the unity of the object of experience. Wittgensteins account
makes the realm of objects intrinsically impossible to anticipate systematically. The subject cannot be given in advance, once and for all, by being correlated with a necessary unity of the manifold of experience. Insofar as we have a concept of limit that is derived from the discovery
of objects, these limits will be given as it were a posteriori, or rather,
through the temporality proper to the recovery of meaning. Wittgenstein proposes, then, a concept of limit understood in relation to meaning, associated with the form of objects rather than the logic of facts. The
limit is what brings out a thing in its essential possibilities of being. Such
a concept of limit does not divide a space into two sides as negation
does, but opens the space in which a thing is.
But if the essence of a thing cannot be determined a priori as a necessary structure of experience, what can determine the limit? What makes
us recognize what something is? We can now understand why Wittgenstein introduces the concept of limit in relation to world rather than to
facts or objects, for it is the belonging of the thing to a world that determines the limit. In his Notebooks Wittgenstein writes:
As a thing among things, each thing is equally insignicant; as a world
each one equally signicant.
If I have been contemplating the stove, and then am told: but now all
you know is the stove, my result does indeed seem trivial. For this rep-
118
Signs of Sense
resents the matter as if I had studied the stove as one among the many
things in the world. But if I was contemplating the stove it was my
world, and everything else colorless by contrast with it.4
Here Wittgenstein suggests that what we might tend to call a small part
of the worldif we think of the world as the totality of facts, say from
the perspective of the opening of the Tractatuscan, when invested
with signicance, be properly called a world in itself. Wittgenstein also
notes that such signicance might appear from the outside, from the
perspective of facts, completely worthless, trivial. The force of a world
cannot be experienced from outside. It is all but dismissable. This insight also points to the difculty of assessing philosophically the place of
such a concept as world, for the very experience of worldhood is liable
to be missed. A certain perspective on things may leave it behind, as the
opening word of a book, or push it indenitely ahead, to its closing
statements.
Moreover, Wittgenstein thinks of a thing such as a stove as something
that is capable of gathering a world around it. The thing in itself bears an
afnity to the world; or, more precisely, the essential form of the thing
appears when it is placed in its world, as a signicant appearance compared with which everything else seems colorless. Most importantly, this
example, by associating world with signicance, shows that the possibility of world depends on the involvement of a subject. It can be said that
the concept of world belongs to a unied structure which places a subject in relation to a world. The central notion is that of being in the
world, of which the concept of world partakes. Understanding the subject in terms of being in the world or being in language might be called
an existential understanding of subjectivity.
What are the essential dimensions of an existential analysis of world
and subject? For Wittgenstein this belonging of subject to world is manifested by the possessive pronoun, the world is my world. Appropriation
is the central determination of existence, and it is expressed in the claim
the world is my world as it appears in 5.641, the last in the series of
propositions concerned with the subject.5
4. NB, p. 83.
5. Schopenhauer opens The World as Will and Representation with the claim: The world is
my representation; this is a truth valid with reference to every living and knowing being (vol.
1, p. 3), and adds further that there is another truth which must be very serious and grave if
not terrible to everyone, . . . that a man also can say and must say: The world is my will (ibid.,
119
Thus there really is a sense in which philosophy can talk about the
self in a non-psychological way.
What brings the self into philosophy is the fact that the world is my
world.
The philosophical self is not the human being, not the human body,
or the human soul, with which psychology deals, but rather the metaphysical subject, the limit of the worldnot a part of it. (5.641)
120
Signs of Sense
121
122
Signs of Sense
take the full-blown view of language as signs that express a sense, then
clearly nonsense would not be part of language. This is undeniable, it is
even tautological. Clearly nonsense is not some kind of content of language. But this is not to say that the empty manipulation of signs is not
related to the level of sense. This issue is analogous to Wittgensteins
statement that tautologies and contradictions belong to language, for
they also constitute a case where the syntax allows for constructions that
defeat their own attempt to make sense and result in senselessness. In
the case of nonsense, we might say that the very demand made on you
by signicant communication is connected internally with the possibility of nonsense.
Signs of Sense
Ethics in Language
Ethics in Language
123
124
Signs of Sense
whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and
is the case is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world, since if it
did it would itself be accidental.
It must lie outside the world. (6.41)
There is something odd about the writing here; it sounds empty and
repetitive. Not only is the claim everything is as it is, and everything
happens as it does happen empty, tautological, but it is followed by an
implied wish to deny, despite all, this tautology: in it no value exists
and if it did exist, it would have no value. We may interpret the writing
as recreating the urge to nd, in fact, absolute signicance, combined
with the sense of the utter futility of such a quest. The writing expresses
the feeling that even if we were to receive what we wished for, it would
turn out to be something that would fail to satisfy our original desire. It
is as if, precisely at the limit where what one says is empty and tautological, the dissonant urge itself came to the fore, beyond content. What is it
that makes our desire so out of joint with its aim? What is the real source
of this problematic condition of desire?
Ethics is transcendental (6.421). Ethics is essentially concerned
with what is higher. If something had value, it would stand out, be signicant in itself. Value is the transcendence beyond the level of the
equal, which is why Wittgenstein starts from the claim: All propositions are of equal value (6.4). As is now clear, this means that they are
equally valueless, or valueless because equal, and indeed follows from
the understanding that a proposition always exists as one amongst many
possibilities in the same space. It is always contingent, that is, it represents a fact against the background of equally possible alternatives. It
cannot therefore be intrinsically higher or signicant. It is impossible to
state something that is nonaccidental: So too it is impossible for there
to be propositions of ethics. Propositions can express nothing that is
higher (6.42).
One could therefore say that when something is of value, it presents
itself to be other, or higher, than it is in fact. This is why Bishop Butlers
statement expresses a fundamental tension for ethics: how in a world
governed by such a principle is ethics possible at all? This question is
surely applicable to the world called forth at the opening of the Tractatus, the world that is the totality of facts. That the very possibility of
questioning the starting point arises here indicates that the ethical mo-
Ethics in Language
125
126
Signs of Sense
My rst reason for quoting this passage at length is to counter from the
outset the argument that Wittgenstein establishes a distinction, so popular among his logical-positivist followers, between factual statements
and the expression of emotions, and views the latter as constituting the
actual essence of ethical statements.5 Emotional states, insofar as they
are described as psychological states of mind, exist exactly at the same
level as facts in the external world. This does not mean that the ethical
does not have an affective dimension; indeed, I will show that affects are
essential to it. But such affects cannot be separated from the dimensions
of language as such. They are tied to the assumption of the limits of language, to our being in language.
Secondly, the great book of facts, as I called it, reveals the contrast between the perspective of facts and the mode in which we exist in a meaningful environmentin a world. Meaningfulness is a dimension of our
very existence in language, not something external to it. It is not a subjective or psychological phenomenon. My interpretation of Wittgensteins account of meaningfulness is intended to provide a way of thinking about the signicance of things apart from propositional content,
that is, apart from the factuality of what can be said. Such signicance
should not be thought of in terms of the miraculous, the outstanding,
or the extraordinary. The miraculous is an event that in itself has absolute signicance, that stands absolutely higher than anything else. Signicance, for Wittgenstein, is ordinary experience presenting a face of
meaningfulness. As a thing among things, each thing is equally insignicant, as a world, each one equally signicant.6 This statement implies that a certain sense of equality appears in a condition of signicance as well as insignicance. The equality of insignicance is of the
one amongst the many; the equality of signicance is of that which
forms a whole, a world. Signicance is correlative with the concept of
world. Hence there is no thing that is signicant amongst a plurality of
insignicant things. Whereas the sensicality of a proposition is always a
matter of fact, signicance makes a world of difference. It is not one part
5. The supposititious sentences of metaphysics, of the philosophy of values, of ethics (in
so far as it is treated as a normative discipline and not as a psycho-sociological investigation of
facts) are pseudo-sentences; they have no logical content, but are only expressions of feeling
which in turn stimulate feelings and volitional tendencies on the part of the hearer. R. Carnap,
The Logical Syntax of Language, p. 278.
6. NB, p. 83.
Ethics in Language
127
of the world that has of itself absolute value in itself or is the ground
for signicance as such. It is, rather, the world as a whole that is illumined with signicance, that waxes and wanes for us. That kind of signicance, associated with having a world, is never partial, which is why
it seems at times so remote, so inaccessible.
This account of the fundamental dimension of value relates to the account of the subject I have so far elaborated. The subject is associated
with the assuming of possibilities. It is not to be identied with some object in the world, but always with possibilities of existence revealed in
language. This does not mean that to be a subject is only to be an authentic subject who has assumed the limits of language, but rather, that
to be a subject is essentially to assume ones utmost possibilities or to
avoid them; the subject is essentially happy or unhappy.7
While the acknowledgment of meaning is the fundamental normative
dimension of existence, the fundamental relation to value, it still needs
to be related to our understanding of morality, in particular to concepts
such as action, will, law, reward, and punishment. Wittgenstein offers an
elaboration of such relations at 6.422:
When an ethical law of the form, Thou shalt . . ., is laid down, ones
rst thought is, And what if I do not do it? It is clear, however, that
ethics has nothing to do with punishment and reward in the usual
sense of the terms. So our question about the consequences of an action
must be unimportant.At least those consequences should not be
events. For there must be something right about the question we
posed. There must indeed be some kind of ethical reward and ethical
punishment, but they must reside in the action itself.
(And it is also clear that the reward must be something pleasant and
the punishment something unpleasant.) (6.422)
128
Signs of Sense
quires a logical connection between the ethical will and what it can
effect in the world. Wittgenstein emphatically denies such a connection
to events or facts:
The world is independent of my will. (6.373)
Even if all that we wish for were to happen, still this would only be a
favor granted by fate, so to speak: for there is no logical connection between the will and the world, which would guarantee it, and the supposed physical connection itself is surely not something that we could
will. (6.374)
We could view the will as a kind of psychological cause and thus calculate its effects as part of a general law, but this would be of no interest to
ethics:
It is impossible to speak about the will insofar as it is the subject of
ethical attributes.
And the will as a phenomenon is of interest only to psychology.
(6.423)
This approach, which denies any necessary connection between the will
and what it effects in the world and sees the will as nding reward in the
very action rather than its consequences, may tempt us to read Wittgensteins ethics as Kantian in its outlines, as grounding the ethical in the
power of an unconditional law of self-determination. But this reading
seems doubtful, if only because the very concept of an unconditional
law is problematic for Wittgenstein, as shown by his understanding of
the necessity of logic and its relation to the concept of law.
Wittgenstein stresses that Just as the only necessity that exists is logical necessity, so too the only impossibility that exists is logical impossibility (6.375). Given his view of the nature of logic, this means that all
necessity is conditional, that is, it derives from the very structure of the
realm of representation. There is no contentful necessity; all necessity
derives from the recognition of structural relations in the sphere of representation:
The propositions of logic describe the scaffolding of the world, or
rather they represent it. They have no subject-matter. They presuppose that names have meaning and elementary propositions sense; and
that is their connection with the world. It is clear that something about
Ethics in Language
129
130
Signs of Sense
Ethics in Language
131
132
Signs of Sense
Wittgenstein does not say that the freedom of the will is an illusion that
derives from our lack of knowledge of the future. Since the future is not
in the space of possible knowledge for us, it is not the object of justied
choice. But this does not mean that he is advocating causal determinism;
indeed, he identies the belief in a causal determination with superstition. Moreover, by claiming that future actions are essentially unknown,
he is not expressing skepticism concerning the laws of nature. He acknowledges the regularity expressed by a law of nature. Yet there is a further dimension of our relation to the world, and it is in its light that we
must think of the freedom of the will. From that perspective, what lies in
the future is meaning insofar as I have to take it upon myself. The problem of knowledge about the future lies in the radical independence of
that sphere of meaning. Thus the problem of the ethical will lies in the
necessity of appropriating meaning, of judging, of making the world
mine.
Wittgenstein addresses the problem of the independence of future
9. For Schopenhauer the realization of the ethical dimension requires going beyond the
sphere of representation. The problematic understanding of willing is that which is subordinated to representation. Schopenhauer links the issue of representation and the incorrect
conception of will as follows: The maintenance of an empirical freedom of will, a liberum
arbitrium indifferentiae, is very closely connected with the assertion that places mans inner nature in a soul that is originally a knowing, indeed really an abstract thinking entity, and only in
consequence thereof a willing entity (The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1, p. 292); and
further, the decision of ones own will is undetermined only for the spectator, ones own intellect, and therefore only relatively and subjectively, namely for the subject of knowing. Ibid.,
p. 291.
Ethics in Language
133
events in the context of asserting the independence of elementary propositions. What is at stake is entering into an order of signicance closed
upon itself.10 Exercising the ethical will involves entering into a world.
Only insofar as the future is not in a space of knowledge is it possible to
speak of the assumption of meaning, the entry into a sphere of signicance. Willing is conceived through the very entering into a space of
signicance that structures ones deeds. The opening of possibilities of
being is the fundamental act of will; it is the basis of all normativity and
of actions undertaken in that sphere of meaning. One might say, then,
that the primary ethical dimension has to do with inhabiting language,
with acknowledging its conditions, with opening the space for action.
The fundamental ethical act is the act of assuming signicance, the
manifestation of the subject through the sphere of signicance, its possibilities and its demands. The correlate of that act, in respect of the subject, is the world rather than a particular fact in the world.
If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can
only alter the limits of the world, not the factsnot what can be expressed by means of language.
In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different
world. It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole.
The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man. (6.43)
From the perspective of the opening of the Tractatus, in which the world
is characterized as the totality of facts, it is hard to see how the limits of
the world could be altered without altering the facts. But here we must
shift away from that picture of our relation to the world. The exercise of
the will (not necessarily what we would think of as any specic act of
will) coincides with the complete alteration of the world involved in entering a sphere of meaningfulness, and Wittgenstein also associates this
alteration with an affective change. This affective dimension must be un10. In thinking of the ethical in terms of the assumption of signicance or meaning, it is
imperative not to revert to a contemplative understanding of meaningfulness. As I emphasized,
the assumption of meaning has to be considered at the level of language as part of the human
organism, that is, as a sphere of action and life. There is no prior understanding of the structure
of language followed by a decision to act upon such a representation. This order of things
would necessarily assume that a representation of a purpose or a content is prior to the act of
willing; it would make the act of willing something sayable. This problematic model of the will
can only be avoided if meaning appears in coordination with action.
134
Signs of Sense
Ethics in Language
135
Just as Wittgensteins earlier claim that The world and life are one established the connection between language and life, so too his thinking
about mortality concerns dimensions that pertain to language.
12. This formulation is intended to evoke the famous encounter between Carnap and
Heidegger concerning the force of the nothing, or whether it means anything to assert that the
nothing nothings. Later on I suggest what position Wittgenstein might have taken in this encounter by considering his remark on Heidegger in his discussions with members of the Vienna
Circle.
136
Signs of Sense
In what sense does the nature of our relation to the absolute limit as
such, to death, determine our relation to what there is? Is that relation
itself formative of life, of experience? If we read Wittgensteins assertion
that death is not an event in life to mean that there is no sense in speaking of the relation to death as structuring the events of life, then death
would be wholly external to life.
But suppose Wittgenstein wants to explain the limit of that totality
which is the world by reference to my relation to my death. I have
claimed earlier that the notion of world is tied essentially to the way in
which a subject is made manifest by appropriating meaning. Such appropriation of meaning is an existential determination tying subject and
world. Thus the notion of world cannot be understood as a contentful
concept. On the basis of the analogy between our relation to life as a
whole and our relation to the world as a whole, we should then say that
there is no concept of completeness or human ourishing or virtue that
determines the proper relation to life as a whole. Or to put it differently,
death is the only form of completion of human life. Thus no preconceived meaning or goal can direct a person in relation to life as a whole.
With death, the possibilities that formed my world do not alter but
come to an end. Such possibilities are mine and do not survive my
death. Possibilities are essentially dependent on my taking language
upon myself; they are always fraught with the possibility that nothing
may happen any more. The possible is to be understood not as an objective space external to the subject, but as something which always contains within its horizon the possibility that nothing be possible, that of
my death. In this case, the possibility of having possibilities, of having a
world, is internally related to the possibility of losing a world.
Moreover, the awareness of that ultimate possibility of human life is
the awareness of life as essentially enigmatic or as always demanding
meaning. This awareness colors life with a sense of incompleteness, or
an essential lack.
Thus we can say that it is this awareness of the limit that turns us onto
life as something that demands meaning, something that could be called
a riddle. This is what drives us to recover meaning, to nd signicance.
Thinking of death as the limit of life is thus intrinsically tied to the enigmatic nature of life or experience and to the assumption of meaning.
This is elaborated in Wittgensteins criticism of the futility of resorting to
the idea of the immortality of the soul:
Ethics in Language
137
Insofar as a certain sense of limitation colors experience with incompleteness, thus presenting it as a riddle, then merely thinking of the continuation of the existence of the soul as it is solves nothing.
The problem with the conception of the immortality of the soul is that
it takes death to be completely external to meaningful life and thus in
principle eliminable for the human soul, if not for the body. This denial
of the condition of nitude fails to solve the problem; it does not accomplish its purpose. But as we saw above, Wittgenstein draws a further distinction between innite temporal duration and timelessness which provides another way of facing that condition:
If we take eternity to mean not innite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.
(6.4311)
138
Signs of Sense
(Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period
of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?). (6.521)
Viewing the world as a limited whole at rst evokes the image of being
able to stand, as it were, outside the world and survey it as a whole. This
image could be related to the opening of the Tractatus, which creates the
sense that we have all facts laid out in front of us. But is that what Wittgenstein means? By adding the qualication limited to the idea of
viewing the world as a whole, is he merely reiterating that everything is
to be taken together, or is he addressing the perspective of the nite,
thus reconceiving the metaphysico-religious idea of the world seen sub
specie aeterni? Does limitation emphasize here the qualication of totality or of partiality? Or does it show a way of thinking them together,
that is, of thinking beings as a whole from the perspective of the nite?
Wittgensteins previous discussion of the relation between limits and
death essentially connected the concept of limitation with that of
nitude. At proposition 6.45, the sense of limitation as nitude is fur-
Ethics in Language
139
140
Signs of Sense
itself manifest beyond beings, but this excess of being can only be characterized through the feeling of the existence of the world as such, not in
relation to something or other. The limitation of the world as such can
then be thought of as the gap between beings and world. What is in excess to what there is can only be thought of as the very existence of the
world.
The original experience of the very possibility of a signicant world is
characterized in Wittgensteins Lecture on Ethics in terms of the sense
of wonder at the very existence of the world, or alternatively, at the very
existence of language:
I will now describe the experience of wondering at the existence of the
world by saying: It is the experience of seeing the world as a miracle.
Now I am tempted to say that the right expression in language for the
miracle of the existence of the world, though it is not a proposition in
language, is the existence of language itself.16
Ethics in Language
141
from this inner limitation. The limits of language, or of the world, are
not merely inert borderlines but are essentially where the movement of
avoidance and recovery takes place. This movement of avoidance is at
the very heart of the ethical; it is a fundamental drive. In relation to language as such it is the destruction of the conditions of meaningfulness,
the drive to nonsense. It is against that background of chaos in language
that we can think of the revelation of the very existence of language or of
signicance.
Thus the ultimate expression of the ethical demands thoughtfulness
in relation to the appearance of nonsense. The showing of what there is
was interpreted through the assumption of ordinary conditions of meaning, but the feeling of the existence of language will manifest itself only
through the destruction of the condition of meaningfulness, in the drive
to nonsense. How is nonsense linked to the expression of the ethical?
When language attempts to express the absolute ground of evaluation
(the possibility of the absolute elevation of something above facts)
when it attempts to claim that something is innitely more worthy
than it is in factit attempts to say something that absolutely escapes
signication. This kind of speech will always miss the mark, for it constitutes a vain attempt to present the transcendence of absolute value
by means of something that can be said, a fact. Presenting something
through the appearance of something else is one way of characterizing
what a metaphor or simile is. In his Lecture on Ethics Wittgenstein diagnoses our ethical language as inherently tending to the simile. Our understanding of the ethical provides us with an account of the generation
of similes (call them pictures) and at the same time explains that there is
nothing behind them.
A gure can be viewed at the most basic level as a translation from one
space to another. But what ethical language manifests is a movement of
translation to which no literal meaning would correspond. The similes
used are essentially empty. Recognizing that fact brings translation or
movement as such to the fore.
Thus in ethical and religious language we seem constantly to be using
similes. But a simile must be the simile for something. And if I can describe a fact by mean of a simile I must be able to drop the simile and to
describe the facts without it. Now in our case as soon as we try to drop
the simile and simply to state the facts which stand behind it, we nd
142
Signs of Sense
that there are no such facts. And so, what at rst appeared to be a simile now seems to be mere nonsense.17
We can better understand Wittgensteins concept of the mystical by noting that in 6.522 Wittgenstein speak of it in terms of revelation: There
17. LE, p. 10.
18. LE, pp. 1112.
Ethics in Language
143
are indeed things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves
manifest. They are what is mystical.19
Wittgensteins use of the passive form, Make themselves manifest,
stands in the starkest contrast with his initial description of our activity
of sense-making as making pictures to ourselves. Manifestation, or revelation, should be distinguished from the active making of pictures, but
also from the dimension of showing.20 What this distinction implies in
the rst place is that we cannot do anything to bring about the experience of the mystical (as opposed to discovering an answer to a question,
or actively seeking it). Of course, showing is not of something that we
produce either: we make sense, but showing is of something that is already there as the horizon of form of our active engagement with things.
But even showing is distinct from the passivity of manifestation. It is
through suffering from nonsense that we can experience manifestation.
We acknowledge meaning but suffer from nonsense. Manifestation and
showing form what might be called the two sides of the event of coming
into presence of meaning. Showing and manifestation depend on each
other. The showing of experience involves the manifestation of world;
the truth in language demands the truth of language. The return from
nonsense is essential to the way in which recovering the limits of experience is associated with happiness.
This relation between manifestation and nonsense makes it clear that
manifestation always involves a dimension in which the failure to signify turns into a sign in itself. Therefore, strictly speaking, revelation involves an affect of pain or anxiety, deriving from failure, which is the
affect that is associated with the experience of limitation as such. Although in the Tractatus itself Wittgenstein does not speak of anxiety as a
revelation of limitation as such, in his conversations with members of
the Vienna Circle he proposes the following interpretation of Heideg19. Ogdens translation of this passageThere is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mysticalconveys more accurately Wittgensteins use of the locution Es gibt,
which does not assume that some thing is revealed. The translation of Pears and McGuinness,
with its reference to things that make themselves manifest, makes the ending most problematic.
Signicantly, the locution Es gibt will later be used systematically by Heidegger for very similar purposes.
20. In German the distinction is between zeigt sich and zeigt. It is important to recognize
the dimension of manifestation or revelation in what shows itself, yet it would be better to retain, as Ogden does in translating zeigt sich by shows itself, the association with showing.
This reinforces the sense that what is shown is not ours to make.
144
Signs of Sense
Signs of Sense
A Demanding Silence
10
A Demanding Silence
146
Signs of Sense
This emphasis on the theme of question and answer is striking. Wittgenstein uses a number of terms when raising that issueRatsel, Problem,
Aufgabe; Losung, Frage; Antwort, Zweifel. The various terms may seem to
support the claim that the question does not exist, but this does not explain why he returns to the theme so many times. It seems, rather, that
this theme should be seen in the context of what is probably the most
evident feature of the books end, its enigmatic concluding sentences.
The end of the Tractatus, with its demand to throw away the ladder,
leaves us astonished. It seems, then, that Wittgensteins constant return
to the theme of questioning is an attempt to separate this astonishment
and the enigma of the end from our usual modes of understanding a
question, a problem, a doubt.
In his discussions with members of the Vienna Circle as well as in the
Lecture on Ethics, Wittgenstein speaks of the kind of astonishment
that is not expressible as a question:
Think, for example, of the astonishment that anything exists. This astonishment cannot be expressed in the form of a question, and there is
also no answer to it.1
A Demanding Silence
147
148
Signs of Sense
A Demanding Silence
149
150
Signs of Sense
It would seem that nothing could be easier than to be silent, and that a
demand for silence would be superuous. But such an easy silence
would not address the anxiety or the sense that the limits of language
place a demand on the subject. If we decide in advance that what is important is the silence, we might just as well sit back and avoid nonsense
by not speaking of anything important. The attempt to avoid nonsense
by remaining silent, Wittgenstein argues, is swinish behavior. The recognition of signicance always involves returning from the temptation of
nonsense. Wittgenstein views the very urge to nonsense as signicant or
as manifesting the ethical dimension. Indeed, what is imperative is not
what one says, but ones ability to recognize this disintegration of language.
For human beings, silence manifests itself in the form of a demand.
This is not the Kantian imperative arising from the division between nature and reason, but rather, it is the sign that the source of the signicance of speech manifests itself only through the drive to nonsense.
The imperative in language cannot be heard apart from the temptation
to nonsense, to noise. This is precisely why being silent is possible only
as an imperative.4 The imperative to listen in silence is the demand to
do away with the noisy elements of nonsense that surround us, but the
imperative form precisely means that silence is ever to be achieved
through overcoming the temptation to noise. We cannot listen to pure
silence.5
The propositions of the Tractatus can serve as elucidations. What is it
that is elucidated and what particular function do these propositions
serve when used as elucidations? Wittgenstein characterizes elucidations in 3.263:
The meanings of primitive signs can be explained by means of elucidations. Elucidations are propositions that contain the primitive signs.
3. R. Rhees, Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections, pp. 9091.
4. Listening has always been a favorite philosophical gure for the appearance of the ethical
imperative, the voice of conscience.
5. This will develop into the voices of the Philosophical Investigationsbetween temptation
and return, ever manifesting the imperative of silence or the need to give philosophy peace.
A Demanding Silence
151
So they can only be understood if the meanings of those signs are already known.
This claim concerning the nature of a philosophical work must be contrasted, on the one hand, to Wittgensteins description of the strictly correct method in philosophy in 6.53, and on the other, to the elucidatory
nature of the Tractatus. The strictly correct method in philosophy raises
the question of the relation between elucidation and demonstrating to
someone that he has failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. An elucidation operates in a context where meaning appears
cloudy and indistinct and must be made perspicuous. The demonstration of nonsense occurs when all our attempts at clarication have failed
to provide a meaning to some term we have used. But this demonstration is produced by means of elucidating meaningful terms. It is precisely by clarifying the functioning of our terms that we can realize that
we have missed our aim, we have failed to provide meaning.
A connection is thus established between the work of elucidation and
the demonstration of nonsense. But this also makes clear the contrast
between such work, which Wittgenstein calls the strictly correct method
in philosophy, and the work of the Tractatus itself. If the Tractatus does
not exemplify the strictly correct method, how does it differ from it? It
could be seen as presenting a case in which a termhere, the term that
opened the book, the worldhas not been given meaning, for all propositions that attempted to produce such a meaning have turned out to be
nonsense. But the peculiar thing is that it is precisely by virtue of that
152
Signs of Sense
A Demanding Silence
153
everything falls apart. Hence the ladder is a gure for the world as that
which eludes us; it is a gure for the recognition of the very absence of
sense in our relation to the world.
However, the ladder also presents the whole text as a gure of sorts,
showing it to be an attempt that misses its mark, a generation of an
excess of meaning in language in an attempt to elucidate the world. It
reveals the work of the Tractatus as the creation of an immense myth.
The Tractatus does not merely include a gure for what it is to read
it. The ladder is a gure that presents that work itself as a gure for
nothing. Think of it this way: the Tractatus is shown, by means of the gure of the ladder, to be illusion rather than thought; although in itself
nonsense, it presents itself as something other than it is. Now such an illusion, far from being a deceitful mask that hides the truth, emerges
as profoundly revelatory. The presentation of truth by means of a displacement from literal meaning is what I understand to be a successful
gure.
I mentioned in my introduction the similarity between the Tractatus and
the impossible book of ethics. What are the implications of this similarity, and of the fact that the apocalyptic book is clearly a book of fantasy?
Did Wittgenstein aim to write such a book but was simply unable to produce the intensity of explosion that would destroy all other books? Or,
as I think Wittgenstein implies, is the thought of writing a book with the
power to destroy all other books itself an illusion?
But how does the gure of the ladder t in this comparison? Throwing away the ladder could also be said to be something of a fantasy, at
least if it is to be understood as solving once and for all the problems of
philosophy (see the preface). For why should the last two propositions
be excluded from the threat of nonsensicality when they too belong to
the book and must be thrown away? That would mean that we must
overcome the fantasy of throwing metaphysics away, once and for all,
like a ladder. The metaphysical urge has to be recognized and deconstructed time and again. This might be one reason why the Tractatus is
not an example of the strictly correct method in philosophy (see 6.54)
but does characterize the need for that method. There is no place where
we could stand to contemplate such a scene of destruction. The wish for
the ultimate silence is as misleading as the wish for the omniscient perspective on all that is the case.
*
154
Signs of Sense
Meaning may have been lost, but does that leave us with nothing?
Maybe it is precisely when no thoughts are left that the simple presence
of the one who writes is revealed, followed by the awareness of myself,
the implicated reader.
The gure of a ladder as a gure for reading allows this shift of registers. If the ladder leads us anywhere, it is from our immersion in the text
to the point where we can raise the question of our relation to the text. It
allows us to understand that our relation to the work as a whole presents
an analogue of our relation to the world and to another person, thus
bringing to the fore author, reader, and text.
At the end of the Tractatus, it is speech rather than thought that is
withheld. The dimension of speech was barely apparent in the previous
considerations. This is therefore the place to inquire what properly belongs to speech as such, and how speech relates to the other moments of
language disclosed by the text. What are the conditions of speech?
I have contrasted speech and saying, and also silence and noise. I now
want to think of speech as essentially a matter of address. Speech is
something that is given and accepted, withheld or denied among subjects. Speech reveals a moment which is essential to ethics and which
has been strangely absent from Wittgensteins considerations up to now:
the presence of another human being as essential to the opening of the
domain of the ethical. That speech is unavailable here, at the end, means
that we have reached the limit of the relation to another person, the limit
that reveals something essential about that relation. This is also the limit
on the intervention on the part of Wittgenstein himself.6
It is signicant that this moment occurs within a scene of education
which starts with 6.53 and deals with how to respond to someone who
comes to philosophy.7 Here the teacher himself appears in person, and
6. This way of thematizing the end makes it a moment of solitude, even in the presence of
another human being. Many interpretations that consider the end of the book in the context of
the problem of the relation to others tend to emphasize a return to communality, to a shared
language (see, for example, J. Floyd, The Uncaptive Eye: Solipsism in Wittgensteins Tractatus; T. Ricketts, Pictures, Logic and the Limits of Sense in Wittgensteins Tractatus). This
approach ignores the way in which agreement in judgment depends upon the moments of utter
isolation, works against the threat of nonsensicality.
7. Wittgenstein speaks of method in the context of the teaching of philosophy, thus using
the term method in the traditional philosophical way (see, for example, Kants understanding
of the doctrine of method). The separation between the strictly correct method in philosophy
and the work of the Tractatus should not be identied with the claim that the Tractatus is not a
textbook (Preface).
A Demanding Silence
155
the limits of his capacity to intervene are determined. In these last propositions Wittgenstein brings together the ethical, the nature of philosophical teaching and learning, as well as the literary space spanned between author, reader, and text.
The moment we face, as a limit moment, is not a communication of content based on understanding but an encounter pure and simple. The appearance of the reader can be thought of through a peculiar temporal
determination of the possibility of coming to terms with the work. Consider the contrast between the description of the readers position at the
beginning and at the end:
Perhaps this book will be understood only by someone who has himself already had the thoughts that are expressed in itor at least similar thoughts.So it is not a textbook.Its purpose would be achieved
if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it. (Preface,
p. 3)
[A]nyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used themas stepsto climb up beyond them.
(He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up
it.). (6.54)
A rst striking difference between these two passages is that whereas the
Preface denies that the Tractatus is a textbook, namely a text that can be
used as a ladder to advance step by step, the end suggests that it must be
treated as a textbook in order to ultimately learn from it beyond what is,
strictly speaking, teachable. This must be related to the claim I made in
the rst chapter: that the work has a structure of return, and that the
place we return to is the world. And we do not need a ladder to reach the
world.8 We nevertheless need the fantasy of climbing a ladder that leads
us to some external theoretical perspective on the world and of failing in
this attempt, precisely in order to be eventually returned to the world. In
throwing away the ladder we do not throw away something that has
served its purpose in bringing us to a different place than the one we
started from. We throw it away because we have realized something
about our urge to construct ladders. But that insight itself cannot be
achieved without working through the fantasy of the ladder.
8. I might say: if the place I want to get to could only be reached by way of a ladder, I
would give up trying to get there. For the place I really have to get to is a place I must already be
at now. Anything that I might reach by climbing a ladder does not interest me (CV, p. 7).
156
Signs of Sense
A Demanding Silence
157
already had the thoughts that are expressed in itor at least similar
thoughts (Preface, p. 3). Why else is the author mentioned if not to indicate that he holds some knowledge that has been denied to all those
who did not share the same thoughts themselves before reading the
text? One is tempted to place Wittgenstein in the position of the subject
who is supposed to know. Moreover, the numbering of the last proposition, 7, would seem to place him in the position of the author of that
world, the one who holds all the answers, in silence. Yet it should be
clear by now that Wittgenstein does not take his authorship as deriving
its authority from the place of transcendence occupied by the divinity.
The point is not that Wittgenstein possesses some knowledge that is
hidden, withheld from us, for in the end there is nothing; and this is precisely what turns the reader towards the author. His attraction as a master derives solely from his ability to make this nothingness manifest.
This is also what I see as the source of both the fascination and the paralysis provoked by the end.
Wittgensteins statement that whoever understands him will eventually reject his propositions as nonsensical sounds strange. If we were to
attribute to him some form of esoteric knowledge, we would expect him
to say that whoever rejects his propositions as nonsensical will understand him beyond what he said. The formulation chosen by Wittgenstein indicates that the relation one forms to the teacher provides the
support for the resolve to eventually reject the propositions. If the recognition of the nonsensicality of the very language we use is at stake, there
must be someone else who supports that understanding as our language
disintegrates. It is this condition that necessitates the appearance of the
rst person.
In his conversation with the Vienna Circle Wittgenstein is reported to
have said:
At the end of my lecture on ethics I spoke in the rst person: I think
that this is something very essential. Here there is nothing to be stated
any more; all I can do is to step forth as an individual and speak in
the rst person. For me a theory is without value. A theory gives me
nothing.11
The appearance of the rst person at the end of the Lecture on Ethics
or at the end of the Tractatus does not mean that we have reached a mo11. WVC, p. 117.
158
Signs of Sense
ment of sincerity, as opposed to the deceit of all that has gone before; nor
can it be attributed to Wittgensteins wish to express his personal belief,
for it appears precisely when all views are put aside. Rather, the necessity of the appearance of the rst person is linked with the disintegration
of meaning as such.
Put differently, when we throw away the ladder, we are confronted
with the question of what we can stand on (until we realize that we have
been brought back to earth). What can support us in that realization? In
particular, if the realization is something of an abyss for the reader, what
is necessary at this point is the presence of another human beingnot
to help the subject to understand, but to support the realization.
The condition is one in which the reader is individuated through facing limits. It is in relation to the books power to isolate the reader at
the end that Wittgenstein writes in the preface: Its purpose would be
achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read it with understanding.12 That the book is aimed at one person does not mean that Wittgenstein had no ambition for his work to make an impact; nor does it indicate his doubt in the possibility of nding one reader who might
understand such a difcult book. Rather, it is essential to the books turn
of thought that it always be aimed at one person, in turn.
12. I have modied the translation to t the sense that what is at stake is not the understanding of the books content but reading it with understanding.
Part Two
Signs of Sense
11
162
Signs of Sense
163
The stark contrast between facts and transcendent value is in part due
to the problematic elaboration of the perspective of the objects. A distinct feature of my interpretation is that it links the recognition of objects to the opening of signicance, to a dimension of value. The recognition of objects is the revelation of the real possibilities of experience.
This claim certainly requires a reconception of our understanding of
value. In particular, it places great emphasis on the idea that the fundamental condition of willing is the recognition of real possibilities for the
will and for action. It is this identication of objects with what is signicant for a subject that is ultimately at stake in the decision to think of
objects as something that can and must be revealed in language. It is primarily for that reason that I assume that objects cannot be thought of
merely as necessary, yet unknown, logical requirements of language.
Having said that, it is clear also that if objects are not merely what is
signied in language but are the source of signicance, the access to
them cannot be straightforward. Hence the various interpretations that
make such objects into objects of acquaintance seem to me problematic
insofar as they do not provide an account of how the recovery of the object has any value. In attempting to problematize the access to objects
while retaining their relation to our mode of making sense, I have interpreted such objects as providing us with the conditions of the sense we
make. This approach is, I think, in line with Wittgensteins later emphasis on the notion of grammar as giving us the condition of possibility of
phenomena. The perspective of the object thus forms one of the central
lines of continuity between the early and the later Wittgenstein.
As opposed to facts and objects, the third perspective, that of the
world, is one of the most neglected in interpretations of the Tractatus.
The world is seldom viewed as a concept that needs elaboration, or that
brings with it a whole grammar of terms that clarify it (such as the notions of limits, of the I, of affects pertaining to its appearance or veiling). As against the intense effort of interpretation devoted to such terms
as facts and objects, the world is often seen merely as some kind of sum
of those (taking, as it were, the opening claim of the bookThe world
is all that is the caseas the central characterization of the notion of
world).1 This can lead to identify the world as it is presented at the be1. An indication of that neglect is that the term world does not even appear in the index of
the central interpretations of the Tractatus.
164
Signs of Sense
ginning of the book with the world that appears as a limited whole at the
end.2 Such an identication leaves us unable to account for the relation
of the world to the ethical. It remains unclear how the totality of facts
can be accessible to feeling, or why such a totality should be of such signicance.
But there is also a danger in separating the world of the beginning
from that of the end, or differentiating too sharply the world of facts
from a mystical experience of totality. In this case the world appearing at
the end would be thought of as a mysterious object of mystical experience, and we would be tempted to appeal to Wittgensteins doctrine of
unsayability to conceal the unclarity of such a mysterious relation to the
world.
Both interpretationsthose that treat the world as a sum total of
facts, and those that treat it as some mystical wholereify this concept
and make of it a graspable totality, an object of contemplation, as if one
could have various attitudes toward that object, or various pictures of
the world as a whole. This approach implies a subject that stands apart
from the world of facts and can change mysteriously his attitudes to
facts. But what such a change of attitude towards facts can be is mostly
left unexplained. For a fact is just plainly . . . a fact.
My interpretation seeks to elaborate the notion of world as part of
understanding what it is for a subject to be in the world or in language
what I call an existential elaboration of the world. This approach enables
the concept of world to be related both to the subject and to an affective
dimension that pertains to the subjects assumption or avoidance of limits. The elaboration of these existential dimensions of the subject depends on the above-mentioned distinction between facts and objects.
Hence a shift in the relation to the world as a whole is not a matter of
subjective attitudes but is made possible by a distinction that lies at the
very heart of language itself.3
2. Thus E. Anscombe writes concerning the appearance of world toward the end of the
book: The world as a limited whole is not suddenly introduced here as a new topic. We encounter the world conceived as a wholeas all that is the caseand as limitednamely by being all that is the caseat the very outset of the book; the feeling of the world as a whole appears in the remark at 1.2: The world splits up into facts, for it is only of a whole that we can
say it splits up. An Introduction to Wittgensteins Tractatus, p. 169.
3. It is this neglect of the existential dimensions of world that explains why many interpreters fail to sense the afnities of Wittgensteins early thought with that of Heidegger, an
165
afnity I try to indicate in my interpretation. Indeed, the central concept in the elaboration of
the analytic of Dasein in Being and Time is precisely that of being-in-the world. The intricacy of
that analysis of the phenomenon of world, and in particular the relation Heidegger establishes
between the appropriation of possibilities and affective dimensions pertaining to being-in-theworld as such can be fruitfully compared with Wittgensteins analysis.
J. Edwards does propose a reading of Wittgenstein with Heidegger, but his reading focuses
on analogies between the thinking of the later Wittgenstein and that of Heidegger. The Tractatus is considered in contrast to the later view: The Tractarian account of the nature of the
proposition as world-representation, as a picture of reality, leads in that book to the discovery
of the metaphysical self, the limit of the world (5.362) which is the necessary condition of any
such representation. From there it is an easy path to the idea that this godhead, this self-conscious will to world-representation that originally makes linguistic meaning by connecting
names to simple objects, also makes, through its own self-created attitude (Notebooks, p. 87),
the ethical meaning that the world as a whole has for the happy or unhappy human being
(Tractatus, 6.43). The Tractarian metaphysical self is the ultimate narcissist: utterly independent of the body and the world, . . . Such a self oats free from the world it surveys and whose
meaning it creates . . . The Authority of Language, pp. 192193. This activist characterization
of the self in the Tractatus clearly stands in stark contrast to a Heideggerian sensibility, which
construes the subject as openness to meaning that is given in the world. But once the subject is
properly construed through the existential possibility of appropriation of meaning, it is possible to sense the afnities of Wittgensteins and Heideggers accounts.
166
Signs of Sense
167
The forms of an object are its internal or formal properties . . . In addition to its formal properties an object has external properties. The form
of an object is its possibility of occurring in the various states of affairs
in which it can occur . . . its form is thus determined by the sum of its
formal properties, for it is they that determine with what kind of other
objects it can combine to constitute a fact. This is what constitutes its
ontological type. The contingent concatenations into which a specic
object does as a matter of fact enter are the external properties of the
object.6
168
Signs of Sense
issues as Wittgensteins supposed realism, his understanding of the relation between language and world, and his understanding of the place of
everyday language.
The question of the nature of the object is made particularly difcult
because of the lack of any examples of objects in the Tractatus. This very
lack can be interpreted as suggesting that objects are to be identied
with theoretical posits that might never be discovered. Thus Russell
writes in his introduction to the Tractatus: It is not contended by Wittgenstein that we can actually isolate the simple or have empirical knowledge of it. It is a logical necessity demanded by theory, like an electron.7
Among contemporary interpreters, D. Pears elaborates this approach
most forcefully: [Wittgenstein] argued a priori from the existence of
factual sentences with senses to the existence of an underlying grid of elementary possibilities, with simple objects at the nodal points.8 Pearss
fundamental starting point is to bring together Wittgensteins understanding of language and Russells logical atomism. Yet Pears wants a
logical atomism without Russells requirement of acquaintance as a determination of the end point of analysis. The criterion of simplicity he
attributes to Wittgenstein is that a thing is simple, and so what he calls
an object, if and only if, its nature does not generate any necessary connections between a sentence in which it is named and other sentences
belonging to the same level.9
Pears thus relates the understanding of the object to the claim that
elementary propositions are logically independent of each other. This
leads him to attribute to Wittgenstein the claim that the objects should
be entirely devoid of internal complexity. But how is such an understanding compatible with Wittgensteins statement that objects contain
the possibility of all situations (2.014)? In Pearss account it is hard to
see how an object can be said to have form, or how possibilities of combination are part of the nature of that object. Pears does indeed acknowledge that the object has various possibilities of combination inherent to
it, but he fails to think of those as being in any way reected in language.
The claim that the object contains its possibilities of combination becomes a dogmatic metaphysical assertion, since nothing in language re7. B. Russell, Introduction to the Tractatus, p. xiii.
8. D. Pears, The False Prison, vol. 1, p. 64.
9. Ibid.
169
ects those possibilities. The way in which Pears conceives of the simplicity of the object makes it a totally inert point whose sole signicance
is to mark the end of analysis. It is unclear how the logical dependencies
of facts are in any way related to the possibilities of the object. But
Wittgenstein seems to think of the object in much more substantial
terms. Objects make up the substance of the world (2.021). They contain all the material from which logical elaboration gives us whatever
facts there are. Conceiving of their form as the condition of facts provides, I think, a better understanding of the substantial role they play in
Wittgensteins account.
Pearss approach to objects can explain why Wittgenstein does not
give any examples of simple objects. Such objects are introduced as an
priori requirement; they must exist if sense is to be possible, but we
might not ever be able to specify what they are. Yet Wittgensteins silence
on this matter could be accounted for in a different way. Insofar as it is
part of the task of the Tractatus to turn us onto language, onto the proper
attention to language, which means precisely the attention to the objects
which embody for us signicant possibility, it would be self-defeating to
provide examples of objects, as if these could be derived theoretically.
The recognition of the object is something that cannot be separated
from the application of logic to specic situationsfrom our use of language.10
Pearss approach does accord to some extent with Wittgensteins dislike for a priori theorizing about the form of reality. It precludes any attempt to give a substantive answer to the question of what there must be
if there be sense. But the question is whether the postulation of the very
existence of such mysterious simple objects is not itself another form of
problematic a priorism. The issue for Wittgenstein is, I think, how to
avoid opening a gap between signication as it appears through lan10. Pears describes logical form as immanent to factual discourse: The system of the
Tractatus is built on an idea that is the exact opposite of Russells idea: the forms revealed by
logic are embedded in the one and only world of facts, and therefore, in the language that we
use to describe it. If Russells view is Platonic, this view is approximately Aristotelian. Logic is
immanent in factual discourse from the very beginning, and it emerges when we take factual
sentences and combine them in various truth-functional ways. The False Prison, vol. 1, p. 23.
But Pears thinks of the immanence of logic only on the sentential level, and overlooks the possibility that the form of objects is immanent to our discourse. He writes later on in a footnote:
But of course, Wittgensteins forms, unlike Aristotles, are sentential. It is only his view of their
source that is Aristotelian. Ibid., p. 29.
170
Signs of Sense
guage, and the world. A theory of objects that makes them essentially
distinct from any meaning we can relate to will necessarily appeal to
some mysterious relation that somehow forms itself between objects and
language. In this reading, the Tractatus would be committed to making
substantive metaphysical claims about the relation between language
and world, which would make the nal gesture of throwing away the
ladder something done in bad faith.
Deciding the question concerning the possibility of revealing the objects thus depends on how we interpret Wittgensteins attitude to ordinary language. Pearss approach would make objects as distant from familiar meaning as possible: the surprising thing is not just that the user
of the sentence does not know its analysis, but, rather, that he has no
idea what kind of thing would be mentioned in its analysis, and might
even nd that he was not familiar with that ultimate kind of thing when
he was told what it was.11
The main difculty I see in arguing that objects are wholly mysterious
and unfamiliar is that they cannot then be viewed as worth recovering.
Objects are, so to speak, taken out of circulation; they do not form an
important part of the picture and task of the Tractatus. This view stands
in contrast to the understanding that the recognition of objects is the
recognition of the signicance of the sense we make. This is why it is not
enough to assert the mere necessity for objects to exist, but also the possibility of recognizing objects in relation to the familiar sense we make,
in everyday language.
Pearss approach forms a connection between a certain understanding
of simplicity and the idea that objects are unlike all that we are familiar
with.
Wittgensteins a priori requirement, that objects should be entirely devoid of internal complexity, drove his analysis of factual discourse beyond the terminus that satised Russell. Objects might turn out to be
things no philosopher had ever suggested as the ultimate targets of reference. Indeed, they would have to be new and strange, because noth11. Ibid., p. 69. Pears senses that Wittgenstein also says different things about the objects
but interprets them as a matter of inclination that is then repressed in the full edged view of
the Tractatus: In the Notebooks Wittgenstein evidently feels misgivings about this extreme
view of logical analysis, and he says things that betray a strong inclination to pull back the terminus to a point that is not so remote from the consciousness of ordinary speakers. Ibid.,
p. 69.
171
ing with which we are familiar could get past his total embargo on internal structure.12
172
Signs of Sense
173
174
Signs of Sense
idea of phenomenology to dispense with the need to insist on the specialized use of acquaintance, as they do. If anything remains from the
idea of acquaintance in relation to objects, it should be sought in the understanding that objects are shown. To know an object is to show its
form as it appears through language. Showing, like acquaintance, refers
us to a certain nondiscursive recognition, but it is a term that is freed
from all connections to sensibility. It is used solely to characterize our
capacity for recognizing the internal relations that constitute the forms
of objects, or for recognizing the meaning of the sense we make.
The Hintikkas also propose a link between Wittgensteins notion of
showing and the view that the objects of the Tractatus are objects of acquaintance. But their understanding of showing is primarily related to
the semantic dimension of the relation between name and objectto
the need for an act of pointing or ostension:
According to Russells sometime theory, there are in our language only
two logically proper names for particular objects other than oneself, to
wit, this and that. If so, Russellian objects of acquaintance are introduced by displaying them and pointing to them, that is by showing
them. This is a perfect precedent of Wittgensteins mystical sounding
doctrine of showing in contradistinction to saying. It seems to us unmistakable that this Russellian idea was in fact one of the models on
which Wittgensteins notion of showing was based . . . Thus the gist of
Wittgensteins seemingly delphic doctrine of showing turns out to be a
sober corollary to a semantics based on acquaintance.16
175
176
Signs of Sense
4. Pictures
A proper understanding of Wittgensteins so-called picture theory is a
fundamental crossroads in grasping the signicance of the Tractatus as a
whole. In my account I aim to address a fundamental interpretative
problem which I see as forcing false issues on the Tractatus. This is the
attempt to think of the book as an effort to provide a thick, substantive
account of the relation between language and reality. The rst question,
then, is whether we have in the Tractatus a theory of picturing.20
E. Anscombe presents the problem of the Tractatus as follows: It is
clear enough . . . that the principal theme of the book is the connection
between language, or thought, and reality. The main thesis about this is
that sentences, or their mental counterpart, are pictures of facts.21 Similarly, P. M. S. Hacker writes:
Philosophy, as practiced in the Tractatus, has one overarching goalto
render an account of the essence of the world . . . the overarching goal
is pursued by searching for the essential nature of the proposition.
Once this is revealed, all lesser philosophical problems will solve
themselves. The key to the search is the notion of depiction . . . The
Picture Theory of the Proposition contains Wittgensteins answer.22
to all the sensical contexts in which its name appears, since the object is identied by certain
contingent, factual properties that it actually possesses. This criticism also seems to me misguided. Indeed, there is no problem in saying things about the object, attributing to it properties through a description, but this does not reveal what the object is, it does not reveal its form.
Thus a denite description cannot give us a grasp of what the object is.
20. The view that the Tractatus provides a substantive theory of the relation between language and world originates in Russells Introduction to the work: The essential business of
language is to assert or deny facts. Given the syntax of a language, the meaning of a sentence is
determinate as soon as the meaning of the component words is known. In order that a certain
sentence should assert a certain fact there must, however the language may be constructed, be
something in common between the structure of the sentence and the structure of the fact. This
is perhaps the most fundamental thesis of Mr Wittgensteins theory (p. x).
What allows Russell to speak, for example, of a fundamental thesis concerning picturing is
his focus on the agreement of structure between the picture and reality. Thus he ignores Wittgensteins claim that there must be at bottom an identity of form between language and reality.
More precisely, Russell seems to use form and structure interchangeably.
21. E. Anscombe, An Introduction to Wittgensteins Tractatus, p. 19.
22. The Rise and Fall of the Picture Theory, in I. Block, ed., Perspectives on the Philosophy
of Wittgenstein.
177
178
Signs of Sense
we are told that a metaphysical conception of the harmony between language and reality is implicit in the Tractatus. He even contrasts such a
conception with Wittgensteins later view in which everything happens
at the level of grammar.23 D. F. Pears similarly avoids the claim of identity and opens a gap between objects and language: [Wittgensteins]
view was that a form is the possibility of a certain combination of objects, and he thought that these possibilities are taken up and expressed
by language, not by acquaintance and naming but by the kind of osmosis that he describes in the picture theory.24 This comment reveals that
part of the problem in Pearss account of picturing derives from his misinterpretation of the notion of form. Pears thinks of form as a possible
structure, rather than as the possibility of structure. Thus even if an
identity of form is acknowledged at the basis of representation, there is
still a need to coordinate the possibilities of objects with possibilities in
language by means of a substantive relation.25 If, on the other hand, we
were to take form as a whole space of possibility, then the identity of
form would not need to be supplemented by a further correlation between language and world.26
23. P. M. S. Hacker, Insight and Illusion (2nd. ed.), pp. 116118.
24. D. F. Pears, The False Prison, vol. 1, p. 116.
25. If a structure is going to count as a picture, it is not enough that it should realize a certain possibilityevery structure does that: it must also be related in a certain way to what it depicts. It follows that pictorial form is partly derivative and partly intrinsic. An example will
make the two aspects of pictorial form clear, taking the intrinsic rst. A eck of paint is put on
a canvas at a certain point, and that realizes a possibility which, of course, existed before it was
realized, namely the possibility that the point chosen on the canvas should be that color. But if
the possibility is going to count as a pictorial form, it must be linked to the possibility that in
the scene depicted the point that is correlated with this bit of the canvas should be that color
too. That is the derivative aspect of pictorial form. Ibid., p. 130. Remaining with the analogy
to painting, and also thinking of the history of modern art, I would suggest that form, insofar as
it has to do with the possibility of a picture, is something like color itself, rather than a particular color, possible or actual. There is then no relation between picture and world but only identity of form.
26. In his Pictures, Logic and the Limits of Sense, Thomas Ricketts refers to many of the
central terms I distinguish in my interpretation of the account of picturing. Yet he also avoids
the strict understanding of the identity of form between picture and world. He claims that there
is a need for a coordination of the possibility of combination of objects with those of names:
There is for a language only the single rule that projects the sentences of that language onto
reality, onto states of affairs (see 4.0141). The rule does this by coordinating names and the
ways that names can form sentences with objects and the ways that objects can form states of
179
I note that Wittgenstein does not say that a name has form and content,
as if these were two separate elements that are put together to form a
name. He writes, An expression is the mark of a form and a content
affairs. The coordinations spoken of in the 2.15s are thus thick, nonextensional correlations
made by the rule of projection for a language. It is these thick correlations that constitute sentences as models of reality, that give names feelers so that sentences composed of those names
are laid like measuring sticks against reality (p. 75).
Ricketts recognizes that there is also a shared form between the picture and reality, but
thinks there is a need for a further projection rule so that the specic combinatorial properties
of names can match those of objects. This results from the fact that alternative arrangements
could equally well represent a certain arrangement of objects. For example: We can specify a
general rule that projects arrangements of blocks on the scene of the accident by assigning
blocks to cars and stipulating that the relative spatial positions of the blocks are to represent
that the cars they name at the time of the accident had the same relative spatial positions . . . Although this rule of projection is salient, it is not the only one. We might use an arrangement of
blocks to represent cars to stand in the mirror image of this arrangement (ibid.).
This example of a permutation that retains the isomorphism of structure seems to demand
the introduction of an additional act of projection into the account of picturing, thus the postulation of a thinking subject that must essentially exist for picturing to work. That subject must
do something for the picture to represent. But is that the case? We can appreciate the problem
in Rickettss account if we avoid thinking of one picture representing reality and rather conceive of a specic language, a notation. It is in the context of such a notation or system of signs
that Wittgenstein introduces the notion of projection. It is indeed possible to think of a notation in which a certain arrangement should be read as a mirror image of the arrangement of
things in the world, but this just means that form is reected in that notation differently than in
other more straightforward notations. There is still complete identity of form and no need for
a further act of correlation.
27. P. M. S. Hacker, Insight and Illusion (2nd. ed.), p. 20.
180
Signs of Sense
(3.31). Furthermore, for Wittgenstein content means propositional content, rather than the object which is the meaning of a name. (See, for example, 3.13: The content of a proposition means the content of a proposition that has sense.) I take it then that when Wittgenstein stresses
that an expression is the mark of a form and a content, he means that the
expression, insofar as it is part of a proposition that states a fact, functions to give us a content. It marks a form when it is considered in relation to other propositions, when its internal properties are brought out.
This is precisely similar to the case of objects that are said to be form and
content. Insofar as they occur in facts they determine content, that is,
material properties. Insofar as we know them as possibilities of combination, they determine a form. So the form that is at stake in 3.31 is precisely the form of the object, and not a merely syntactical form to which
the meaning of the object is to be added.
Since Hackers interpretation makes no connection between the pictorial form and uncovering the form of objects, it requires that we assume
a further relation between names in the picture and objects in the world.
The merely formal signs must be lled with content. This leads to what I
see as a problematic distinction imposed on Wittgensteins account between a syntax which is merely formal, that is, empty of content, and a
semantics that lls it with content.
P. M. S. Hacker identies Wittgensteins use of the notion of projection
with establishing meaning for names:
Understanding a proposition requires . . . knowledge of the correlation
between its constituent names and the objects they name. This will be
the case either if I have endowed the name-signs with a Bedeutung by
correlating them through a mental act with elements in my experience,
or alternatively if they have been explained to me by means of elucidations . . . Either way a mechanism of a psychological nature is generated to
project lines of projection onto the world.28
Thus the harmony Hacker invokes between language and world is ultimately secured by the subject, who injects meaning into empty formal
structures. As he puts it in the rst edition of Insight and Illusion:
The view that the skeleton of language only takes on esh and blood
through occult mechanismsthat the logical syntax, which is a priori
28. P. M. S. Hacker, Insight and Illusion (1st. ed.), p. 51, my emphasis.
181
182
Signs of Sense
5. Logical Syntax
In developing Wittgensteins understanding of the relation between
making sense and recognizing meaning I have claimed that there is an
32. When discussing Hackers account in Wittgenstein and Idealism, Bernard Williams is
fully aware of this tension and expresses the sense that the apparent discovery of the transcendental self must be recognized as provisional: The sense in which [the subject] is a limit, also
means that at the limit, it is nothing at all. Quoting 5.64, Williams adds: Indeed, granted this,
I nd puzzling why Wittgenstein can say (5.641) that there really is a sense in which philosophy can talk about the self in a non-psychological way. But I take this to mean that philosophy
can talk about it the only way in which by the end of the Tractatus, we nd that philosophy can
talk about anything: that is to say, not with sense. B. Williams, Moral Luck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 146.
33. Hans-Johann Glock, A Wittgenstein Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), p. 358.
183
184
Signs of Sense
that is, they reect the form of objects in our use of language. Signs indeed contain much that is arbitrary, but such arbitrariness disappears as
one brings out the symbolic form.
Even as one considers the form of our means of representation, it is in
no way conventional. One could say that the form of representation is
determined by the understanding of the possibility of representation as
such. This is elaborated in Wittgensteins account of picturing, particularly in the idea that the form of representation must be identical with the
form of facts. There is no signicant conventionalism in Wittgensteins
understanding of language.
This point may elucidate the difference between Wittgensteins claim
that logic is not part of the constitution of reality and the position taken
by the positivists. Carnap writes in his Intellectual Autobiography:
For me personally, Wittgenstein was perhaps the philosopher who, besides Russell and Frege, had the greatest inuence on my thinking. The
most important insight I gained from his work was the conception that
the truth of logical statements is based only on their logical structure
and on the meaning of the terms. Logical statements are true under all
conceivable circumstances; thus their truth is independent of the contingent facts of the world. On the other hand, it follows that these
statements do not say anything about the world and thus have no factual content.36
In the Logical Syntax of Language Carnap takes this insight to mean that
the logic of a language is to be identied with syntax and that it is conventional. Whereas Wittgenstein, as I understand him, uses that insight
to point to a perspective on the world apart from logic. Carnap indeed
would readily adopt a distinction between the logical and the factual,
but for Wittgenstein the critical distinction is the one between facts in
logical space and objects. The turn to the object is part of the legacy of
the Tractatus that positivism could not accept, for it is related to the appearance of nonlogical internal relations between propositions, something akin to the traditional notion of the synthetic a priori.
This central distinction between Wittgenstein and Carnap is also related to another crucial point of difference in their views concerning the
possibility of a meta-perspective on language. Indeed, in Carnaps view,
36. R. Carnap, Intellectual Autobiography, in P. A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Rudolf
Carnap, p. 25.
185
the essential freedom of syntax is possible precisely because we can determine a standpoint from which all those different languages can be described:
The sentences, denitions, and rules of the syntax of a language are
concerned with the forms of that language. But, now, how are these
sentences, denitions, and rules themselves to be correctly expressed?
Is a kind of super-language necessary for the purpose? And again, a
third language to explain the syntax of this super language and so on to
innity? Or is it possible to formulate the syntax of a language within
that language itself? . . . We shall see later that without any danger of
contradictions or antinomies emerging it is possible to express the syntax of a language in that language itself, to an extent which is conditioned by the wealth of means of expression of the language in question.37
By claiming that the description of the syntax of a language can be expressed in that language itself, Carnap believes he avoids the regress that
worries Russell. But both Carnap and Russell miss Wittgensteins deepest intentionsthat form is not the postulation of rules for the use of
signs but rather something that must be recovered through the recognition of internal relations between the various propositions we use.
Wittgensteins notion of showing emphasizes that meaning is revealed
through language, and that we can never control the appearance of such
meaning but are required to be attentive to it. The idea of a meta-language is thus revealed to be allied with a conception of the control of
37. R. Carnap, Logical Syntax of Language, p. 3.
38. B. Russell, Introduction to the Tractatus, p. xxii.
186
Signs of Sense
6. Everyday Language
Everyday language certainly occupies a central place in Wittgensteins
later philosophy, but can the seeds of that conception already be discerned in the Tractatus? Part of what hinders us from attributing to Wittgenstein the afrmation of everyday language is that he invokes the need
to devise a logically adequate notation to remedy the defects of ordinary
language. Understanding this idea hinges on making the proper distinction between sign and symbol, as well as between the logical space of
representation and the space or form of objects.
As I have argued, Russell has misunderstood Wittgensteins position
on both those issues. It is not surprising then for him to conclude that
the elaboration of a logically perfect language (as opposed to a notation)
is what Wittgenstein requires to remedy the logical defects of everyday
language:
In order to understand Mr. Wittgensteins book, it is necessary to realize what is the problem with which he is concerned. In the part of his
theory which deals with symbolism he is concerned with the condi-
187
The rst thing to note is Russells assertion that the problem of language
has to do with the level of meaning, with the signs capacity to mean anything at all. This is quite different from Wittgensteins emphasis, which
is that the defects of ordinary language are a matter of notation, not a
question of the capacity of language to signify at all. Russells problem is
to devise a language that can secure signication, which for him means a
complete devaluation of ordinary language. Wittgensteins problem is to
make the signication inherent in ordinary language perspicuous, whatever it is. As he puts it in the Notebooks: My method is not to sunder the
hard from the soft, but to see the hardness of the soft.40
In his Critical Notice, F. Ramsey points out that Russells assumption that Wittgensteins theory is concerned with the construction of a
logically perfect language is not an infallible guide to Mr. Wittgensteins
meaning, and that in general [Wittgenstein] seems to maintain that
his doctrines apply to ordinary languages in spite of appearance of the
contrary.41 But Ramsey himself might not have grasped the role that ordinary language plays for Wittgenstein. It is one thing to claim that the
doctrine of the Tractatus applies to ordinary languages, and another to
see something like language in its everydayness as a standard of signicance. Moreover, Ramsey speaks of ordinary languages (in the plural), apparently referring to such languages as English, French, Hebrew,
etc. But Wittgenstein uses the term in the singular, showing that he is
concerned with the everyday or the ordinary in language as such. The
afrmation of everyday language, at this stage of Wittgensteins think39. Ibid., p. x.
40. NB, p. 44.
41. F. Ramsey, Critical Notice of L. Wittgensteins Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, in I. M.
Copi and R. W. Beard, eds., Essays on Wittgensteins Tractatus, p. 34.
188
Signs of Sense
189
take care of itself. A possible sign must also be capable of signifying. Everything that is possible at all, is also legitimate. Let us remember the explanation why Socrates is Plato is nonsense. That is, because we have
not made an arbitrary specication, NOT because a sign is, shall we say,
illegitimate in itself.45 This passage is repeated almost identically in the
Tractatus at 5.473. It is then followed by the claim that In a certain
sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic. It is clear from the context
that this remark elucidates something important about signication. It is
precisely signication, that is, meaning, that takes care of itself. There is
an inherent aboutness in language, an intentionality that does not depend on our intentions but rather takes care of itself.
The Tractatus does not mean to determine what the world must
be like for language to be possible. But the attempts made by various
commentators to provide a self-evident ground of language testify that
Wittgensteins insight that language takes care of itself has not been understood. These attemptswhich have involved, for instance, characterizing a priori what the simple objects must berun counter to Wittgensteins imperative to recognize the meaning inherent in everyday
language, to recognize what takes care of itself. This is why Wittgenstein
follows 5.473 with a remark on Russells introduction of the notion of
self-evidence into logic: Self-evidence, which Russell talked about so
much, can become dispensable in logic, only because language itself
prevents every logical mistake (5.4731).
7. Realism or Idealism
The assumptions made concerning the nature of simple objects, the nature of picturing, and in general the relation between language and
world determine to a large extent whether a given interpretation conceives of Wittgensteins position as, broadly speaking, realist or idealist.
D. Pears presents Wittgensteins position as essentially realist: The
Tractatus is basically realistic in the following sense: language enjoys
certain options on the surface, but deeper down it is founded on the intrinsic nature of objects, which is not our creation but is set over against
us in mysterious independence.46 The mysterious independence of the
45. NB, p. 2.
46. D. Pears, The False Prison, vol. 1, p. 8.
190
Signs of Sense
object, hence the realism Pears attributes to the Tractatus, results in part
from the inability to appreciate the fact that the form of objects is indeed
mirrored in language. Pearss emphasis on inferential relations as the
sole component of form does make it wholly mysterious how precisely
objects are operative in determining what can be done in language, or
what the limits of language are.
Interpretations that take Wittgensteins view in the Tractatus to be realist usually contrast it unfavorably with his later philosophical sensibility. Thus Pears presents Wittgenstein as a clear case of what he calls uncritical realism:
nothing is said about the way in which we manage to go on using a
name correctly after its original attachment to an object. The assumption is that, if that problem arises, the nature of the object will take care
of it . . . Our minds contribute nothing positive at this point and there
is no admixture of intellectual labor. Now the objects of the Tractatus
are the only ultimate constituents of the world, and so this account of
the way in which they acquire and keep their name is intended as a
general explanation of the attachment of language to the world. It is
wholly un-Kantian, a clear paradigm of uncritical realism.47
191
192
Signs of Sense
ception together with the acceptance of Schopenhauers quasi-reication of the unity of consciousness, and other related and obscure theories about ethics, the will, aesthetics, and religion. Wittgensteins
originality in the matter lies in his attempt to dovetail these doctrines
into the sophisticated account of representation with which most of
the Tractatus is concerned.51
By adopting only the rst part of Schopenhauers idealism one nds oneself afrming something like the transcendental egoism that is always a
danger for an idealistic position. But the ethical standpoint involves going beyond the specular predicament of the transcendental subject. It involves the essential passivity of the subject in relation to the appropriation of meaning, which is registered in Wittgensteins Notebooks in such
claims as:
In order to live happy I must be in agreement with the world. And that
is what being happy means.
I am thus, so to speak, in agreement with that alien will on which I
appear to be dependent. That is to say: I am doing the will of God.52
The acknowledgment of the presence of that alien will makes the very
recognition of the body of meaning a recognition of life or will beyond
the perspective of representation. It is only the renunciation of control
of the world by means of representation that opens an ethical perspective in our relation to meaning.
I would therefore like my interpretation to avoid both idealism and realism. What I want to avoid in the realist picture is the notion that objects are independent of language, that they exist on their own, and that
language in some way must correspond to them. Objects, I would argue,
are given through language, indeed through the fundamental identity of
language and world at the level of form. But, as against the idealist picture, I would also like to avoid making the object a product of our structuring subjectivity. What I emphasize, following Wittgenstein, is the way
in which the object cannot be anticipated; that is, the object is given
only through our recognition of the internal relations in language. The
recognition of objects, of meaning, rather than its projection or determination, is viewed as the central feature of subjectivity.
Instead of metaphysical realism, I attribute to Wittgenstein what
51. P. M. S. Hacker, Insight and Illusion (2nd. ed.), pp. 99100.
52. NB, p. 76.
193
C. Diamond calls a realistic spirit. Its highest achievement is the openness of the human subject to experience that cannot be anticipated,
openness in the face of the drive to impose false necessities on experience. Instead of an idealistic position, I attribute to Wittgenstein the notion that truth of solipsism involves the recognition that true subjectivity depends precisely on assuming the impersonal limits of experience,
that is, in being realistic in the sense described above. One could say that
the realistic spirit and the truth in solipsism are one.
194
Signs of Sense
195
196
Signs of Sense
197
Floyds interpretation leaves no room for the possibility of such identication, because she does not think it possible to make sense of the
notion of the limits of language in the Tractatus. She argues that any
concept of limit imposes an a priori structure on the world, and thus
goes against Wittgensteins innermost convictions. My elaboration of the
realm of objects and of the form of objects is intended precisely to enable
us to think of limitation without identifying it with the a priori and the
systematic.
9. Ethics
Many of the problems of interpretation concerning the place of the subject in the Tractatus affect the account given of the ethical. Thus Wittgensteins claim that facts do not provide the ground for value is taken to
mean that values are to be identied with the attitudes of a subject towards the facts.63 H. O. Mounce, for example, writes: The facts do not
solve ethical problems; they can only give rise to them. The solutions are
found in the attitudes one adopts towards the facts. But Wittgenstein
means all the facts, psychological as well as physical.64 This position
gives rise to many questions. In what sense do facts give rise to problems
at all? If we take seriously the idea that a fact is merely the conguration
of things, no essential problem seems to arise from things being congured in such and such a way rather than another. Facts, one might say,
do not solve any ethical problems, but precisely for the same reason they
do not give rise to them either. If a fact could give rise to an ethical problem, it could also solve it. Wittgenstein writes that The facts all contribute only to setting the problem, not to its solution (6.4321). But I take
it that setting the problem does not mean giving rise to the problem.
Facts are in that sense entirely indifferent to what is higher.
A further question raised by Mounces account is: what is an attitude
63. This is often perceived as a problematic dead end of the Tractatus conception of ethics.
Thus, for example, P. Johnston writes: Here Wittgensteins investigation comes to a dead-end;
unable to discover the basis of action in the facts, he is forced to look elsewhere. Thus in the
Notebooks he considers the notion of the will and treats this as the origin of our actions. However, since the world is motivationally inert he transports the will to beyond the world . . . Thus,
ethically speaking, what our actions are taken to reect is the transcendental relation of world
and willsomething of which one literally cannot speak. Wittgenstein and Moral Philosophy,
p. 78.
64. H. O. Mounce, Wittgensteins Tractatus, an Introduction, p. 97.
198
Signs of Sense
toward the world, and in what sense is it not part of psychology? How
can we understand the act of a subject involving a shift of attitude toward the world? What does such a shift include? If we speak of an empirical self, then such a shift is just another psychological fact in the
world. But psychological facts are supposed to be part of what one
changes ones attitude toward. Conversely, if it is the transcendental subject which is shifting its point of view on the world, how can such a subject relate to the essentially personal dimension of ethics? How can such
a metaphysical subject be said to be happy or unhappy?
Consistent with his position, Mounce rejects as a mere analogy the affective dimension that is explicit in Wittgensteins understanding of the
will and its relation to the world: We must be careful, however, not to
misread Wittgensteins analogy. In speaking of the world of the happy
man, he is of course referring obliquely to a common phenomenon. The
man with a happy temperament looks on the bright side, accepts the
very fact that throw the unhappy man into despondency. It is important
to see, however, that this is merely an analogy.65
The assumption that speaking of the happiness and unhappiness of
the subject is merely an analogy is a symptom of the difculty in explaining what exactly a shift of attitudes amounts to, and in what sense
affects that seem to be always psychologically determined can have anything to do with a transcendental subject that stands outside the world.
But for Wittgenstein such affects are surely real, for he relates them to
the reward and punishment that pertain to the ethical (6.422). There is
indeed a serious problem in elaborating the relation of pleasure and pain
to Wittgensteins conception of ethics. For pleasure and pain seem to be
essentially related to particular aims of our empirically determined will.
Wittgenstein clearly does not hold the position that identies the goodness of an action with its consequences understood in terms of providing pleasure and removing pain, since he speaks of the will as altering
the world as a whole.
Mounces problem then starts with his juxtaposition of a world of fact
against a transcendent subject and leads to the impossibility of explaining the nature of a relation to the world as a whole which involves an affective dimension. This can be overcome only by construing the subject
as essentially in a world. The fundamental affects that pertain to the sub65. Ibid., p. 96.
199
ject are then determined by the dimension of this being in the world. My
attempt to consider a psychology that has to do with the very existence
in the world or in language is intended to merge both the individual perspective and the universality of language, as well as allow for an affective
dimension as an essential dimension of existence in language. The subject is not outside the world but is essentially determined through assuming the limits of the world.
However, in order for such an account to be possible at all, it is necessary to replace the talk about a shift in attitude with an elaboration of
how language contains within itself the duality of perspectives that can
explain our task of assuming meaning. I have done this by systematically distinguishing between the perspective of facts and that of objects.
What is at stake in ethics, then, is not a shift of attitude, a shift that assumes that in some unexplained way we see or interpret the facts differently; rather, the subject is understood as essentially related to the movement between perspectives opened by language itself. The perspective of
facts is indeed valueless, but that of the object gives us the form of our
world, of our possibilities of existence. This is not a matter of our attitude but rather of what there is. Our attitude can at most be described as
one of acknowledgment or avoidance of those possibilities.
To speak of a psychology of our very existence in language might
seem extremely problematic. Indeed, what are the manifestations of
such a psychology? What are feelings or affects that pertain to the world
as a whole, or to language as a whole? As I have argued, a central component of that psychology, against which the recovery of meaning truly appears as the entrance into a signicant world, is the urge to nonsense.
That is, the generation of nonsense is not a mere mistake but the manifestation of a fundamental human urge to avoid the conditions of language. The last parts of my interpretation concern the manifestation of
that drive.
This conception of the ethical might seem rather remote from anything pertaining to ethics. Indeed, I think that in the Tractatus Wittgenstein directs us to something that is more fundamental than what we
usually think of when we construe the ethical as a particular domain of
philosophy. This is an attempt to locate the source of value in the very
place where we uncover the limits of language, that is, where we recognize through language what there is. It is a perspective that locates the
fundamental normative dimension in the revelation of the meaningful-
200
Signs of Sense
ness of phenomena. This connection of ethics with ontology, or with being in language as such, can be thought as being founded on an imperative of meaningfulness.
The claim that Wittgensteins ethics is essentially religious can to
some extent justify basing ethics on the imperative to meaning. This is a
feature of P. Shieldss interpretation, in which he attempts to link Wittgensteins concern with drawing limits to language and his concern with
ethics. The broad outlines of this interpretation construe Wittgensteins
injunction to accept the arbitrariness of grammar as an ethical or even
religious injunction, as doing the will of God. Shields quotes the passage cited above from Wittgensteins Notebooks:
In order to live happy I must be in agreement with the world . . . And
that is what being happy means.
I am thus, so to speak, in agreement with that alien will on which I
appear to be dependent. That is to say: I am doing the will of God.66
Shields relates this form of amor fati to the acceptance of the arbitrariness of grammar in language. Although I agree with the general direction of his interpretation, I think nevertheless that it must be supplemented with an account of how logical form in the Tractatus comes
to have such a signicance. Indeed, Shieldss interpretation of the ungroundedness of grammar accords well with Wittgensteins Philosophical
Investigations, but less obviously with the Tractatus. Much needs to be
said as to how we nd in the Tractatus the access to that level of reality
which we need to accept. My attempt to think of objects as being revealed apart from the form of justication pertaining to the logic of facts
means to convey that what is revealed is something like the ungroundedness of meaning. We stand beyond justication, accepting what is
given, for the sphere of justication is precisely that determined by the
logic of facts. Acceptance of the object thus goes beyond the demand for
justication and proof. Contrary to Shields, I think that such an acceptance is essentially the acceptance of everyday language. Indeed, part of
what is involved in acknowledgment and avoidance of meaning must include an elaboration of our relation to everyday language. For what
needs to be acknowledged must be, in a sense, in plain view. This is precisely why, as Shields himself emphasizes, the problem is a problem of
66. NB, p. 76.
201
202
Signs of Sense
a theory of value not unlike what is expressed in the famous last chapter of Moores Principia Ethica, . . . If these immediate objects of
Moorean valuable experiencesthe emotional cousins of Russells and
Moores sense-dataare among Wittgensteins objects in the Tractatus,
it will literally be true that the world (the totality of objects) of a person who has valuable experiences is different from that of a person
who does not. This is precisely what Wittgenstein says of the difference
between a happy and an unhappy person.68
It is symptomatic that here the world is identied with the sum of objects, so that there might be objects of valuable experience in the world
of the happy man which do not exist in the world of the unhappy man.
This interpretation fails to account for Wittgensteins idea that for the
unhappy man the world as a whole seems to lose signicance, whereas
the happy mans world gains signicance: The world must so to speak
wax and wane as a whole. As if by accession or loss of sense.69
The idea that the existence of nonsense and of a drive to nonsense is
signicant should be distinguished from the idea that nonsense in itself
conveys some meaning. Here I fully agree with Diamonds interpretation
that nothing can be said or shown in nonsense (using both terms strictly
as I use them in my interpretation). But something is made manifest by
the existence of nonsense, and it is this manifestation that is at stake at
the end of the Tractatus.
203
204
Signs of Sense
205
75. I remark in this context how deep certain misinterpretations of the Tractatus can be. I
have evoked the expression the Nothing nothings to characterize the appearance of the drive
to nonsense, to form a connection between Carnaps famous attack on Heideggers What Is
Metaphysics and Wittgensteins concerns in the Tractatus. The irony is, of course, that Carnap
takes himself to be the inheritor of Wittgensteins view, and this fuels his attack on Heidegger.
Whereas I think that Wittgenstein is in fact very close on this issue to Heidegger, as witness his
remark to the Vienna Circle on Heidegger quoted above.
76. J. Conant, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and Nonsense, p. 218. In the light of this description of the aim of philosophical teaching, I note the following: in the rst place, the therapeutic method suggested seems to me to t better Wittgensteins Philosophical Investigations,
where certain illusions are addressed locally, rather than as part of one totalizing movement.
I do not see that there are any such therapeutic achievements on the way of reading the
Tractatus. Both the issue of nonsense and the recognition that in our reading we are drawn into
nonsense come together toward the end of the book.
It would seem that a good form of therapy would at the end make us loosen our grip on
what has long been unattractive. This eventually does happen, but only because the end of the
Tractatus is such a serious and ultimate effort of expression. Moreover, it seems that the
Tractatus is not an example of a certain point of view that can be adopted and which is brought
to its patent nonsensical conclusions. It seems to be an effort to relate each and every philosophical problem to a whole presented by the text.
206
Signs of Sense
207
Conant does not see the use of the rst person at the end as the appearance of Wittgensteins own voice. He sees it as determining a shift from
the supposed understanding of the propositions to the understanding of
the utterer of nonsense. But who is the utterer of nonsense? I take it that
here Wittgenstein occupies an exemplary position, he speaks for himself. The Tractatus is, one might say, Wittgensteins self-analysis. This is
what Wittgenstein expresses in the Lecture on Ethics, when he includes himself among those who run up against the limits of language:
My whole tendency and I believe the tendency of all men who ever
tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run up against the boundaries of language. He further stresses in his conversations with members of the Vienna Circle that speaking in the rst person in that lecture
was something essential. I read this as meaning that what is expressed is
a tendency of the human mind which cannot be denied or left behind,
and which is exemplied by the Tractatus. It is only against nonsense
that signicance is achieved. It is in that sense that Wittgenstein can
claim: This running up against the limits of language is Ethics (WVC,
p. 68). Peace in philosophy is achieved in the midst of that struggle, not
by avoiding it.78
A different way of making this point is to recall what Wittgenstein
says in his letter to Ficker I quoted in the Introduction. There he writes
that his book delimits the ethical from within. C. Diamond interprets
this claim as follows: Working from the inside of what can be said, we
see that in the totality of what can be said, nothing is ethical. And this is
indeed put explicitly by Wittgenstein. He says that it is impossible for
there to be ethical propositions; ethics cannot be put into words.79 This
claim is surely correct, but does it represent what Wittgenstein means by
delimiting ethics from within? It merely follows from the traditional distinction between facts and values, together with Wittgensteins understanding that to say something is always to represent a fact. In my reading, to delimit the ethical is to bring understanding to the limits of
language. We must truly work through the Tractatus as a whole to reach
that limit condition.
In order to give content to Wittgensteins intuitions concerning ethics,
78. I nd that Stanley Cavells treatment of skepticism expresses this sense that the inner
struggle between metaphysics and the release from metaphysics are part of our human constitution.
79. C. Diamond, Ethics, Imagination and the Method of the Tractatus, p. 60.
208
Signs of Sense
Diamond writes of certain views she is inclined to attribute to Wittgenstein. She contrasts the characteristic position on ethics in the Englishspeaking tradition, according to which ethics is a particular branch of
philosophy with a specic content, with Wittgensteins view that there
are no ethical propositions:
Just as logic is not, for Wittgenstein, a particular subject, with its own
body of truths, but penetrates all thought, so ethics has no particular
subject matter; rather an ethical spirit, an attitude to the world and life,
can penetrate any thought or talk. Wittgenstein, like some other writers, speaks of two different as it were attitudes to the world as a whole;
he refers to them as that of the happy and that of the unhappy. The
happy and the unhappy as it were inhabit different worlds.80
But if indeed ethics pervades all of language, then language must itself
be accounted for in such a way that it can bear such signicance. There
must be a perspective opened by language itself through which we can
recognize the signicance of our world. In Diamonds account, language
is elaborated primarily in relation to the perspective of facts. We nd her
thus having recourse, like Mounce, to the problematic idea that the attitudes of a subject as it were change the world.
Diamond gives another account of what she is inclined to say concerning Wittgensteins ethics by considering the idea of the independence of the world from the individual will. She views Wittgensteins remarks on suicide toward the end of the Notebooks as pointing to a
conception of the ethical that demands to accept what there is in the
world, and thus its highest prohibition is suicide.81 But we need to elaborate precisely in what sense the world is alien to the individual will.
What is it that the individual has to accept? Can we accept anything but
what is meaningful? If meaning or language is not at stake in this attitude of acceptance, we are in danger of falling into a problematic
psychological understanding of imaginary identication. But if it is
meaning in language that has to be acknowledged, then language must
80. Ibid., p. 61.
81. If suicide is allowed then everything is allowed. If anything is not allowed then suicide
is not allowed. This throws a light on the nature of ethics, for suicide is, so to speak, the elementary sin. And when one investigates it, it is like investigating mercury vapor in order to
comprehend the nature of vapors. Or is even suicide in itself neither good nor evil? (NB,
p. 91).
209
Signs of Sense
12
211
So let us reconsider the problem of colors as it bears on internal relations, starting with a claim Wittgenstein makes in the Tractatus:
For example, the simultaneous presence of two colors at the same
place in the visual eld is impossible, in fact logically impossible, since
it is ruled out by the logical structure of color.
Let us think how this contradiction appears in physics: more or less
as followsa particle cannot have two velocities at the same time; that
is to say, it cannot be in two places at the same time; that is to say, particles that are in different places at the same time cannot be identical.
(It is clear that the logical product of two elementary propositions
can neither be a tautology nor a contradiction. The statement that a
point in the visual eld has two different colors at the same time is a
contradiction.) (6.3751)
212
Signs of Sense
tracted and their names could not be included in the analyses of sentences mentioning the things that possessed them, and so the connections themselves could not be represented tautologically. It is from this
point of view that we should see his refusal in the Tractatus to treat colors as simple objects. If color words could not be analyzed, the undeniable incompatibilities between colors would force him to retract his
sweeping claims about necessity. In 1929 he gave up the thesis that
color-words are analyzable and allowed them to occur in elementary
sentences. That amounted to an abandonment of the sweeping claims
made about necessity in the Tractatus, and his more subtle account followed later.2
Pears starts from the assumption that there is an undeniable incompatibility between colors, but he argues that such ascriptions must be further analyzed in order to reveal that incompatibility as a matter of logical
necessity. Pears claims that if color words could not be analyzed, the
undeniable incompatibilities between colors would force [Wittgenstein]
to retract his sweeping claims about necessity. This implies that color
terms are logically complex and must disappear in the analysis. Furthermore, their analysis will show us that there is indeed a logical incompatibility between two color ascriptions. In 6.3751 Wittgenstein argues indeed that because the incompatiblity is logical, we have not reached the
level of elementary propositions. But the question is, what does it mean
for Wittgenstein to reach that level of description in which the contradiction disappears? Does it mean that color terms will disappear, or that
when we reach that level of description, we grasp the proper form of the
space of colors, say, in relation to time and space?
Indeed, Wittgenstein remarks in 2.0251: Space, time, and color (being colored) are forms of objects; and further, in treating the form of depiction of a picture: A spatial picture can depict anything spatial, a colored one anything colored, etc. . . . (2.171). This strongly suggests that
color has a form that is to be shown.3 And the showing of that form is
precisely the basis for the description in terms of elementary propositions.
2. D. Pears, The False Prison, vol. 1, pp. 7273.
3. E. Anscombe concludes from her reading of 6.3751 that elementary propositions cannot
be simple observation statements: Indeed quite generally, if elementary propositions are simple observation statements, it is very difcult to see how what Wittgenstein says [in 6.3751]
can possibly hold good of them; for any proposition, which could reasonably be called a simple
213
To make this clearer, consider the way Wittgenstein describes the apparent contradiction in physics. The claim that a particle has two different velocities is turned into a claim that a particle cannot be in two different places at the same time; that is, particles that are in different
places at the same time are not identical. We might ask why we would
think of particles that are in different places at the same time as different.
This seems to follows from the very form of space, time, and particles,
that is, of what we will call space, time, or a particle. So, as we bring out
the form of space or of the existence of particles in space, we would arrange such propositions in a formal series. The different terms of such a
formal series can serve to derive a contradiction from a statement such
as a particle has two different velocities at the same time, but it is only
the whole formal series that provides us with something of the form of
what we call the place of particles in space. This is made clear by the remark in the Notebooks on which 6.3571 is based:
A point cannot be red and green at the same time: at rst sight there
seems no need for this to be a logical impossibility. But the very language of physics reduces it to a kinetic impossibility. We see that there
is a difference of structure between red and green.
And then physics arranges them in a series. And then we see how the
true structure of the objects is brought to light.
The fact that a particle cannot be in two places at the same time does
look more like a logical impossibility.
If we ask why, for example, then straight away comes the thought:
Well, we should call particles that were in two places different, and this
in turn all seems to follow from the structure of space and of particles.4
I note that the true structure of the object is brought to light by such a
series. Moreover, as Wittgenstein points out, we should call particles
that were in two places different, and this in turn all seems to follow
from the structure of space and of particles. That is, we understand
what the object is, what its form is, what we call a place in space occuobservation statement, one could nd another that would be incompatible with it and precisely analogous to it logically. An Introduction to Wittgensteins Tractatus, p. 27. I agree with
Anscombe that the objects need not be identied with objects of acquaintance, but this does
not mean that colors do not have a form that can be shown and symbolized in elementary propositions.
4. NB, p. 81.
214
Signs of Sense
pied by a particle, by presenting what we say in a formal series. That formal series is the basis for the representation of states of affairs in terms of
elementary propositions where the form of the objects (of space and particles) is brought out in the notation. The logical incompatibility appears between structures in the formal series, but the formal series as a
whole is what brings out the form that should be reected by elementary
propositions.5
Referring to the view of the Tractatus in Some Remarks, Wittgenstein reiterates the claim that he has taken into account the internal constitution of entities: I have said elsewhere that a proposition reaches up
to reality, and by this I meant that the forms of the entities are contained
in the form of the proposition which is about these entities. For the sentence, together with the mode of projection which projects reality into
the sentence, determines the logical form of the entities (p. 36).
It seems therefore that the problem presented in Some Remarks
does not concern Wittgensteins discovery of internal relations that constitute the objects, but rather the distinction made between the form of
objectsthe internal relations that constitute the objectsand the logical form of facts. Far from discovering the internal relations of objects,
the statement of the problem assumes that distinction from the start. Indeed, the problem lies precisely in the assumption of a sharp demarcation of those two realms (a demarcation I presented in Chapter 6). In the
Tractatus Wittgenstein thought that he could clearly separate the rules
for the logical constants that can be given in advance of experience and
characterize the general form of representation, from the internal form
that can only be uncovered, as it were, by inspecting phenomena. What
Wittgenstein realizes and expresses in Some Remarks is that the grammar of the object and that of the logical constants are not separable, not
independent.
According to the Tractatus, which assumes that the grammar of facts
can be separated from the grammar of objects, we are allowed to form
the proposition A is red and A is green. Since every conjunct is a
sensical proposition, and the conjunction of two propositions yields in
turn a proposition, that conjunction must be allowable. Now, when such
5. In their Investigating Wittgenstein, J. Hintikka and M. Hintikka suggest a similar solution
to the color exclusion problem. Their solution is similarly motivated by the understanding that
Wittgenstein attributes form to objects and that form is the basis for the complexity of the factual.
215
an operation results in tautologies and contradictions, we are given allowable combinations with no content whatsoever. These are the senseless, limit propositions. But the proposition A is red and A is green
yields something that must be thought of as nonsense from the perspective of the internal form of the object, yet is an allowable combination
from the perspective of facts. It is in this clash of perspectives that the
real problem arises.
This is why Wittgenstein states in Some Remarks that in such a case
we would have a truth table that contains only three rows. One supposed option of combination (according to the syntax of the logical constants) would be ruled out as nonsensical. This is what distinguishes
this case from the tautologies and contradictions which can be expressed as standard truth tables despite their senselessness.
In his conversations with the members of the Vienna Circle, Wittgenstein makes this aspect of the problem perfectly clear:
I used to have two conceptions of an elementary proposition, one of
which seems correct to me, while I was completely wrong in holding
the other. My rst assumption was this: that in analysing propositions
we must eventually reach propositions that are immediate connections
of objects without any help from logical constants, for not, and, or,
and if do not connect objects. And I still adhere to that. Secondly I
had the idea that elementary propositions must be independent of one
another. A complete description of the world would be a product of
elementary propositions, as it were, these being partly positive and
partly negative. In holding this I was wrong, and the following is what is
wrong with it. I laid down rules for the syntactical use of logical constants, for example p.q, and did not think that these rules might have
something to do with the inner structure of propositions. What was
wrong about my conception was that I believed that the syntax of logical constants could be laid down without paying attention to the inner
connection of propositions. That is not how things actually are. I cannot, for example, say that red and blue are at one point simultaneously.
Here no logical product can be constructed. Rather, the rules for the logical constants form only a part of a more comprehensive syntax about
which I did not yet know anything at that time.6
Here Wittgenstein clearly says that the problem lies in separating the
syntax of the logical constants from the inner relations of elementary
6. My emphasis, WVC, pp. 7374.
216
Signs of Sense
Works Cited
Index
Works Cited
Works Cited
Works Cited
219
220
Works Cited
Works Cited
221
Heidegger, M. Being and Time. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
van Heijenoort, J., ed. Frege and Gdel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1980.
Hintikka, J. On Wittgensteins Solipsism. In Copi and Beard, eds., Essays on
Wittgensteins Tractatus, pp. 157162.
J. Hintikka and M. Hintikka. Investigating Wittgenstein. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Hylton, P. Russell, Idealism, and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1990.
Ishiguro, H. Use and Reference of Names. In Winch, ed., Studies in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, pp. 2050.
Wittgenstein and the Theory of Types. In Block, ed., Perspectives on
the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, pp. 4359.
Johnston, P. Wittgenstein and Moral Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1989.
Kant, I. Critique of Judgement. J. C. Meredith, trans. London: Oxford University
Press, 1952.
Kenny, A. Wittgensteins Early Philosophy of Mind. In Block, ed., Perspectives
on the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, pp. 140147.
Malcolm, N. Wittgenstein: Nothing Is Hidden. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
McGuinness, B. F. Pictures and Form in Wittgensteins Tractatus. In Copi and
Beard, eds., Essays on Wittgensteins Tractatus, pp. 137156.
The Grungedanke of the Tractatus. Reprinted in Caneld, ed., The Philosophy of Wittgenstein, vol. II, pp. 251264.
The So-Called Realism of Wittgensteins Tractatus. In Block, ed., Perspectives on the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, pp. 6074.
Wittgenstein: A Life. Young Ludwig: 18891921. London: Duckworth,
1988.
Monk, R. Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. New York: Free Press, 1990.
Mounce, H. O. Wittgensteins Tractatus: An Introduction. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981.
Pears, D. F. The False Prison. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
Ramsey, F. P. Critical Notice of L. Wittgensteins Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
In J. V. Caneld, ed., The Philosophy of Wittgenstein: A Fifteen-Volume Collection, vol. 1, p. 35.
Rhees, R. Discussions of Wittgenstein. New York: Schocken Books, 1970.
, ed. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections. Oxford: Blackwell,
1981.
Some Developments in Wittgensteins View of Ethics. The Philosophical Review (1974), pp. 1726.
Ricketts, T. G. Frege, The Tractatus, and the Logocentric Predicament. Nous
15 (1985), pp. 315.
Objectivity and Objecthood: Freges Metaphysics of Judgment. In
222
Works Cited
Works Cited
223
Index
Index
Index
Aesthetics, 8, 134
Affect, 134, 143144 . See also Feeling
Agreement, 50, 176; and truth, 5860; with
the world, 192, 200
Analysis, 4344, 68, Chapter 6 passim, 109
111, 151; and the nature of objects, 168
171, 211212
Anscombe, Elizabeth, 6, 21, 164, 176, 212
Astonishment, 119, 144, 146149
Augustine, 144, 149
Benjamin, Walter, 13, 15
Carnap, Rudolf, 74, 135, 144, 205; The
Logical Syntax of Language, 1, 2, 111, 126,
183186; Aufbau, 126
Cavell, Stanley, vii, 8, 10, 207
Complex, 4243, 72, 81, 113, 172, 212
Conant, James, 6, 202207
Conceptual notation, 81, 83, 89
Conditions, 5, 11, 54, 162163, 166, 172
173, 177, 196, 199; as form, 40, 4546; of
representation, 5962, 68; recognizing,
105, 107, 111; conditionality of logical
necessity, 131, 133; presence of, 137
Conguration, 3640, 44, 197
Creation, 15, 17, 56, 139140
Depiction, 50, 52, 5558, 64, 66, 103, 212
Diamond, Cora, 6, 35, 90, 156, 188, 193,
202, 204, 207, 208209
Dreben, Burton, vii
Elementary propositions, 2729, 32, 72, 168,
171; and analysis, 4243, 98; cannot be
anticipated, 108113; and the will, 133;
and color exclusion, 211216
Engelmann, Paul, 2, 4
Enigmatic, xiii, xvi, 16, 136, 146147, 206
Ethics, 13, 16, 92, 164, 192, 196201, 204,
209; ethical point of the Tractatus, 26, 8,
Chapter 10 passim; and language, Chapter
9 passim
Facts, 6, 7, 9, 12, 1417, 9192, 95, 98, 102,
104106, 114, 141142, 161167, 197
200; and logic, Chapter 1 passim; and
objects, Chapter 2 passim; representing
facts, Chapter 3 passim; propositonal sign
as fact, 63, 6770; have no value, 124129
Feeling, 126, 134, 137141. See also Affect
Ficker, L. von, 3, 8, 23, 207
Figure, xviii, 4, 10, 13, 22, 51, 52, 125, 141
142, 150, 152154, 194195
Finitude, 23, 137142
Floyd, Juliet, 7, 23, 154, 195197
Form, 31, 89, 129, 130, Chapter 11 passim;
of objects, Chapter 2 passim; pictorial,
Chapter 3 passim; of signs, Chapter 4
passim; symbolic, Chapter 5 passim; and
analysis, 92102; recognizing, Chapter 7
passim; and limits, 116119; and color
exclusion, Chapter 12 passim. See also
Logical form
Formal concept, 8087
Frege, Gottlob, xv, xix, 1, 21, 26, 30, 37, 40,
59, 68, 69, 7476, 8385, 87, 8990, 94,
115, 184, 204; Begriffsschrift, 4, 89;
Foundations of Arithmetic, 72, 89
Freud, Sigmund, 51, 56
Friedlander, Eli, 11, 144
Hacker, P. M. S., 4, 24, 51, 166167, 176
182, 191192, 194, 203
225
226
Index
Index
Shields, Philip, 200201
Showing, 29, 55, 70, 78, 81, 83, 93, 101
102, 110111, 140, 143, 162, 167, 171,
173175, 185186, 201, 212
Sign, Chapter 4 passim, 7178, 8184, 86
98, 101, 181, 183188
Signicance, 1617, 48, 106108, 117118,
124, 126127, 133, 136142, 150, 162
163, 199202
Silence, 23, 15, 16, 24, 147150, 153, 157
Simple, 9, 25, 27, 29, 42, 43, 9192, 96102,
109, 113, 123, 168173, 210212
Solipsism, 115120, 191196
Space, 27, 63, 6570, 75, 81, 8586, 137,
182, 212214; and form, 3646, 166167,
178; pictorial, 5059. See also Logical
space
Speech, 154
States of affairs, 72, 99, 167, 214; and facts,
Chapter 1 passim; and objects, Chapter 2
passim
227