Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and Divergences

It is not difficult to find both affinities and divergences in the work of Wittgenstein and Brandom but this particular text explores several key issues beyond first impressions and reveals hidden divergences in supposed similarities and occasionally less profound dissimilarities where their philos...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Simon Blackburn
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Disputatio Editions-IAR 2019-06-01
Series:Disputatio
Subjects:
Online Access:https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/79
id doaj-c9f0516f701b4165bfa8b5780fc3a118
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c9f0516f701b4165bfa8b5780fc3a1182021-09-13T11:27:25ZengDisputatio Editions-IARDisputatio2254-06012019-06-018910.5281/zenodo.2642429Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and DivergencesSimon Blackburn0University of Cambridge, UK It is not difficult to find both affinities and divergences in the work of Wittgenstein and Brandom but this particular text explores several key issues beyond first impressions and reveals hidden divergences in supposed similarities and occasionally less profound dissimilarities where their philosophies seem to differ radically. Both Wittgenstein and Brandom (as well as Dewey), while agreeing that representations cannot be taken to be primitive, would not approve of Rorty’s drive to jettison the very idea of representation along with that of truth. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, “is averse to any attempt at general, explanatory, theories of how language works” while “Brandom is much more positive about the possibility of general, systematic and explanatory theories of meaning.” The divergence about the builders of Philosophical Investigations § 2 and their language use is traced back to Wittgenstein’s being essentially a worldly pragmatist, while Brandom's practice is essentially intralinguistic. In the second part, the text takes issue with Brandom's theory of making explicit, and in the final sections, the paper questions the supposed contrast between expressivism and the “motley of language” and takes a look at Brandom's strive for a normative realism that distinguishes him from other expressivists. https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/79Wittgenstein's BuildersLanguage GamesPracticeExpressivismRealism
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Simon Blackburn
spellingShingle Simon Blackburn
Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and Divergences
Disputatio
Wittgenstein's Builders
Language Games
Practice
Expressivism
Realism
author_facet Simon Blackburn
author_sort Simon Blackburn
title Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and Divergences
title_short Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and Divergences
title_full Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and Divergences
title_fullStr Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and Divergences
title_full_unstemmed Wittgenstein and Brandom: Affinities and Divergences
title_sort wittgenstein and brandom: affinities and divergences
publisher Disputatio Editions-IAR
series Disputatio
issn 2254-0601
publishDate 2019-06-01
description It is not difficult to find both affinities and divergences in the work of Wittgenstein and Brandom but this particular text explores several key issues beyond first impressions and reveals hidden divergences in supposed similarities and occasionally less profound dissimilarities where their philosophies seem to differ radically. Both Wittgenstein and Brandom (as well as Dewey), while agreeing that representations cannot be taken to be primitive, would not approve of Rorty’s drive to jettison the very idea of representation along with that of truth. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, “is averse to any attempt at general, explanatory, theories of how language works” while “Brandom is much more positive about the possibility of general, systematic and explanatory theories of meaning.” The divergence about the builders of Philosophical Investigations § 2 and their language use is traced back to Wittgenstein’s being essentially a worldly pragmatist, while Brandom's practice is essentially intralinguistic. In the second part, the text takes issue with Brandom's theory of making explicit, and in the final sections, the paper questions the supposed contrast between expressivism and the “motley of language” and takes a look at Brandom's strive for a normative realism that distinguishes him from other expressivists.
topic Wittgenstein's Builders
Language Games
Practice
Expressivism
Realism
url https://studiahumanitatis.eu/ojs/index.php/disputatio/article/view/79
work_keys_str_mv AT simonblackburn wittgensteinandbrandomaffinitiesanddivergences
_version_ 1717381056612532224