Metaphilosophical Reflections on the Idea of Metaphysics
Robert Brandom, The Harvard Review of Philosophy
Abstract
Robert Brandom, The Harvard Review of Philosophy
Abstract
One constant in Wittgenstein’s thought, early and late, is his denial not only of metaphysical naturalism, but of methodologically monistic scientism, a broadly epistemological view that is often taken to be a consequence of such a metaphysical view. This is the claim, roughly, that scientific knowledge is the form of knowledge, and scientific understanding is the only kind of understanding that deserves the name. “Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences,” he says in the Tractatus, and this view seems to be part of what lies behind the theoretical quietism of the later work. In fact, I think Wittgenstein thinks that if systematic philosophical theorizing were possible, it would mean that philosophy is an empirical science. Since it is not, philosophers must eschew theorizing, restricting themselves instead to light, local descriptions of discursive practices, where such descriptions might provide helpful reminders in freeing ourselves from the sort of misunderstandings and puzzlements that arise precisely from the theories implicit in inherited pictures of what is going on when we think and talk. Whether or not Wittgenstein himself reasoned in this way, I Philosophia (2012) 40:13–26 DOI 10.1007/s11406-011-9332-7
OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
One constant in Wittgenstein’s thought, early and late, is his denial not only of metaphysical naturalism, but of methodologically monistic scientism, a broadly epistemological view that is often taken to be a consequence of such a metaphysical view. This is the claim, roughly, that scientific knowledge is the form of knowledge, and scientific understanding is the only kind of understanding that deserves the name. “Philosophy is not one of the natural sciences,” he says in the Tractatus, and this view seems to be part of what lies behind the theoretical quietism of the later work. In fact, I think Wittgenstein thinks that if systematic philosophical theorizing were possible, it would mean that philosophy is an empirical science. Since it is not, philosophers must eschew theorizing, restricting themselves instead to light, local descriptions of discursive practices, where such descriptions might provide helpful reminders in freeing ourselves from the sort of misunderstandings and puzzlements that arise precisely from the theories implicit in inherited pictures of what is going on when we think and talk. Whether or not Wittgenstein himself reasoned in this way, I Philosophia (2012) 40:13–26 DOI 10.1007/s11406-011-9332-7
Key concepts: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy