Rule-Following and the Limits of Formalization: Wittgenstein’s Considerations Through the Lens of Logic

0Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In the Tractatus, it is stated that questions about logical formatting (“why just these rules?”) cannot be meaningfully formulated, since it is precisely the application of logical rules which enables the formulation of a question whatsoever; analogously, Wittgenstein’s celebrated infinite regress argument on rule-following seems to undermine any explanation of deduction, as relying on a logical argument. On the other hand, some recent mathematical developments of the Curry-Howard bridge between proof theory and type theory address the issue of describing the “subjective” side of logic, that is, the concrete manipulation of rules and proofs in space and time. It is advocated that such developments can shed some light on the question of logical formatting and its apparently unintelligible paradoxes, thus reconsidering Wittgenstein’s verdict.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pistone, P. (2015). Rule-Following and the Limits of Formalization: Wittgenstein’s Considerations Through the Lens of Logic. In Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (Vol. 308, pp. 91–110). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10434-8_6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free