Philosophy of Language: Wittgenstein (PHIL-3620; 74739)
Prof. Edgar Boedeker
Spring 2018 Tuesdays
& Thursdays, 12:30-1:45pm Lang
Hall 211
Office hours: 2:15-3:15 Tuesdays and Wednesdays in my office,
2099 Bartlett. I would also be happy to meet with you at
another time. To arrange a meeting, just send me an e-mail at
edgar.boedeker@uni.edu.
Required books (which you can order at the online venue
of your choice; to make sure you get the correct edition, it’s
safest simply to enter the ISBN):
1. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus (translated by David
Pears and Brian McGuinness [not
Ogden]) (ISBN: 9780415254083).
2. Ludwig Wittgenstein, On
Certainty (ISBN: 978-0061316869).
3. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (revised
4th edition; translated by Anscombe, Hacker, and Schulte) Wiley-Blackwell, 2009 (ISBN: 9781405159296).
Course description: Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) was one of the most
important philosophers of the 20th Century. One of
his achievements was to demonstrate how important language is
for understanding philosophical questions. We will begin by
examining his first book, the Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus (1921), which gives a
philosophical foundation to the new logic introduced by Gottlob
Frege (1848-1925) and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970),
and develops a view of language as essential to thought. We will
then follow Wittgenstein as his perspective on language broadens from formal
logic, to the various roles language plays in people’s lives, examining his
revolutionary views of knowledge, understanding, and mind and some of their
applications in contemporary philosophy.
Course goals: This course has three main goals:
(1) to introduce you to some of
the main issues in Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language;
(2) to help you analyze and
evaluate arguments; and
(3) to give you practice in
writing cogently and persuasively.
Course format: Class meetings will consist of a mixture of lecture and
discussion. In order to benefit from both, it is essential that you
do all of the reading for each class. One of the
most important things that this course will offer you is the opportunity to
hone your interpretive, argumentative, and rhetorical skills by writing several
papers on the often difficult texts we will be
reading.
Evaluation:
1. 40% of your final grade will come from “analytic response
papers” from 1 to 2 pages in length on a study
question or a topic of your choosing. Frequently, the handouts will
contain questions that, either individually or combined, can serve as the basis
of the analytic response papers. Each analytic response paper will
be worth 4% of your final grade. Analytic response papers will be
graded on a check (full-credit), check/check-plus (1¼ credit), check-plus (1½
credit), check/check-minus (¾ credit), check-minus (½ credit)
basis. Due-dates are indicated on the
syllabus below. I will not accept any analytic response papers
or worksheets after these dates.
The purpose of the analytic response papers is to encourage you to
do each reading assignment, and to come to class prepared to discuss it. They
may be turned within a week after we have discussed
the topic in question. I want to stress that these are not “reaction
papers.” In calling them “analytic”, I mean to stress that you
should focus on one important topic or passage in a reading
assignment, and interpret it as clearly and accurately as you
can. In doing so, you may apply it to your own
experience. Nevertheless, I want you to connect what you say with
particular passages in the text. This may, but need not,
include a criticism of what the author says.
2. Class participation: I expect that all students will
participate actively and constructively in classroom
discussions. Asking questions and responding to what I or fellow students say are excellent ways for you to
learn. Doing so regularly will boost your final grade by up
to two-thirds of a letter-grade, for example, from a B+ to an
A. On the other hand, if your presence in class contributes to a
negative learning environment (for example, repeatedly coming to class late,
treating fellow students with disrespect, obviously not paying attention,
texting, whispering, etc.), this can reduce your final grade by one third of a
letter grade per episode.
3. Attendance: I reserve the right to take attendance at the
beginning of each class period. You are permitted
two unexplained absences during the semester. For each unexplained
absence beyond these two, your final grade will be reduced
by one third of a letter grade. For example, someone with a B+
average with 4 unexplained absences (i.e., 2 more than
the 2 allowed) will receive a B- in the course. The only
explanations I will accept are a weather emergency, illness documented by
doctor’s note, documented funeral, documented mandatory participation in UNI
athletics, or notice of military service.
I realize that this is a fairly strict
attendance policy. I have instituted it mainly because much of the
learning that you will do in this course will take place in
class. Asking questions, raising objections, and listening to others
are important skills that you will get to practice in class
discussions. In addition, coming to class is necessary to doing well
in this course.
4. Two papers on an important aspect of one of the texts we
read. I will give you paper topics in
advance.
- The first paper should be around 6-7 pages in length and will be
worth 25% of your final grade. Suggested topics for this paper are linked to the due-date on the syllabus. I
invite you to discuss your paper with me as you write it.
- The second paper, due by the date and time during finals week
specified at the end of this syllabus, in my mailbox in the Department of
Philosophy and World Religions office (1089 Bartlett), should be around
7-9 pages in length, and will be worth 35% of your final grade. Again,
suggested topics for this paper are linked to this
due-date on the syllabus, and I invite you to discuss your paper with me
as you write it.
I don’t
require – and don’t recommend – that you use any secondary
sources, i.e., anything but the texts assigned in class, but if you do use any
you must cite them.
I strongly encourage you
to co-write your paper with (just) one other
member of the class. Co-writing is an
increasingly important skill in such fields as business, science, teaching,
law, etc. Since I will hold a co-written paper to exactly the same
standards as a single-authored paper, it is very likely to be to your
advantage to co-write a paper. After all, two heads are (usually) better than
one! If you co-write a paper, however, please make
sure that you and your co-author both check it for organization,
consistency, avoidance of repetition, etc.
Note on the papers:
One thing that a philosophy
paper should not be is a “book report,” i.e., an attempt to
summarize an entire philosophical text. Instead, a good philosophy paper should
give a close and concise analysis of a single key argument in
a text. An “argument” in this sense isn’t a verbal
fight (this isn’t the Jerry Springer Show, after all!). Rather, an argument (as
we’ll be using the term) is a chain of reasoning from
certain statements (called the “premises”) to another statement (called the
“conclusion”) that the argument claims is supported by the
premises.
A good philosophy paper contains
both a careful, concise, and accurate analysis of such an argument; and
some criticism of
it. “Criticism” here doesn’t mean disagreement (it’s fine to
agree or disagree with a philosopher!), but rather an examination of possible objections to
the argument you’ve analyzed. A good criticism
consists of giving reasons (1) why one or more of the premises of the argument you’ve
analyzed might be false (in
which case the conclusion still might be true, but just for different
reasons); and (2) why
these premises, even if
they were true, might not support
the conclusion (in
which case the conclusion still might be false even if the premises were true).
If you end up finding the philosopher’s argument faulty in either or both of
these ways, then try to “tinker” with the premises, conclusion, or chain of
reasoning as charitably as possible, to see if you can come up with a
modification of the argument to make it more cogent. What matters
most is the quality of your reading, writing, and argumentation.
Remember that the reasons you give for or against
an argument should be more than simply your beliefs or opinions. Rather, they
should be potentially convincing to someone
else, even if this person may not initially share your beliefs or
opinions. After all, are you convinced
that something is true just because
someone else happens to believe it? So don’t just
state whether or not you agree with the author’s conclusion. Instead, try to
give reasons for or
against the author’s argument for
this conclusion.
In my experience, a common way for paper grades to suffer is
due to a lack of documentation
in the texts. You should use direct citations sparingly – generally
only if the exact wording of the passage is either directly relevant to the
argument you’re making, or particularly clear and
concise. Short direct citations should be placed in quotation-marks;
direct citations over 3 lines long should be offset, indented, single-space,
and without quotation-marks. In other cases, use indirect citation –
paraphrasing in your own words what the author says, and telling the reader
where he or she says it. Also, please number the pages to make
it easier to comment on them.
I strongly encourage you to
discuss your paper with me before you turn it in, and I’m
happy to read drafts and offer comments.
Website: The great majority of our course materials will be linked to our online syllabus, which can be accessed
via my teaching website: http://www.uni.edu/boedeker.
facilitate our electronic communication, a MAILSERV distribution list has been
created for this class using your
UNI e-mail addresses. It will be your responsibility to check
your e-mail regularly, read the announcements, and print out all attachments. You’ll also definitely want to obtain a 3-ring binder to
organize and store the various handouts and readings for this class.
Cheating and plagiarism: It
is your responsibility to read UNI’s Student Academic Ethics
Policy (Chapter 3.01 of UNI’s Policies and Procedures
Manual, available at https://www.uni.edu/policies/301,
from which some of the following is copied or otherwise
borrowed). Using the terminology defined in this document,
please note the following:
Any student who commits a Level One violation will receive no credit for the entire assignment
in question.
Any student who commits a Level Two
violation will receive no credit for the entire assignment
in question; and, in addition, a reduction in the course grade
by two full letter grades, i.e., 20% (e.g., from a B- to a D-).
Any student who commits a Level Three violation is mandated by the University to receive a
disciplinary failure for the course. (This will automatically appear on the
student’s transcript.) As your professor, UNI also requires me to
reprimand the student in writing in the form of a letter addressed to the
student and copied to the Head of the Department of Philosophy and World
Religions, the student’s department head (if different) and the Office of the
Executive Vice President and Provost.
You are also responsible for reading
all of the information about plagiarism on this site:
http://www.uni.edu/bergv/homepage/plagiarism.htm
It’s
also your responsibility to ask me any questions you might have about
this. Please note that if someone does anything that fits the definitions
of “plagiarism” given in this document, he or she has
committed plagiarism, whether or not he or she intended to do so.
Disabilities: Please contact me if I can be of
assistance in this area. All qualified students with disabilities are protected
under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A.,
Section 12101. The ADA states that
“no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability,
be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by
any such entity.” Students who desire or need instructional accommodations or
assistance because of their disability should contact the office of Student
Disability Services, located in 103 Student Health Center
(voice: 319-273-2677; for deaf or hard-of-hearing, use Relay 711).
Tentative course schedule:
(Please note that there’s a worksheet
linked to almost every date on the syllabus.
“January 9” contains a link to one, “January 11” to another, etc.)
I. Language from a logical point of view: Frege,
Russell, and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus
January 9: Introduction:
language, logic, and the foundations of arithmetic in the 19th Century. Please read this selection from An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding (1689/90) (from Book III: “Of Words”) by
John Locke (1632-1704). Potential topics for the first analytic response paper.
January 11: Do concept-words signify
“abstract ideas”? Read this selection (sections 6-25 of the Introduction) from A Treatise
Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) by the Irish
philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753). Also read the following selections from the German mathematician,
logician, and philosopher Gottlob Frege
(1848-1925), “Function and Concept” (1891), pp. 21-35, 39; Frege, “On Sense [Sinn] and Meaning/Reference [Bedeutung]” (1892), pp. 56-65; and Frege, Basic Laws of Arithmetic, Volume I (1893) §§1-3, §5.]
January 16: Read the following
selections from Frege: Conceptual Notation (= Begriffsschrift, 1879),
§§1-3, 5 (this link also contains reading for February 5); Foundations of Arithmetic (1884), “Introduction” and §§1-4; Basic Laws of Arithmetic, Volume I (1893), §32-33.]
January 18: Deadline for first
analytic response paper. Read Wittgenstein, Tractatus (1921), propositions 1 to 3.144 (pp.
5-14).
Note on reading the Tractatus: The Tractatus is a
short but very dense book, so it’s tempting to look
for a straightforward introduction to it. My advice is to avoid doing this,
instead diving into the text, writing about it in your homework, asking
questions in class, etc. Whatever you
do, please don’t read Russell’s Introduction to the book!!! It has misled generations of readers of
the Tractatus, and it’s
time to turn over a new leaf. Wittgenstein himself said that it
consisted of nothing but “superficiality and misunderstanding,” and didn’t want it printed with the Tractatus,
even if this would have prevented the book from being published. The book was published with Russell’s introduction without
Wittgenstein’s permission or knowledge.
January 23: Read Bertrand Russell
(1872-1970), The Problems of Philosophy (1912), last 5
paragraphs of Chapter IV (“Idealism”) and all of Chapter V (“Knowledge by
Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description”), pp. 28-40.
Then read Tractatus,
propositions 3.2 to 4.26 (pp. 14-37). (Note that the page numbers are
those of the Pears-McGuinness translation, not the Ogden one in Major Works.)
But don’t read the following passages:
3.315, 3.316, 3.317 (on pp. 17-18).
3.331, 3.332, 3.333 (on pp. 19-20).
4.0411 (on p. 27).
4.1252 (on p. 33).
4.1273 (on p. 35).
{Note: In 4.032 (on p. 26), “ambulo”
is Latin for “I walk.” Latin indicates both the verb (here, “walk”)
and the person (here, “I,” the first person
singular) in one word, whereas English uses two words to do this.}
January 25: Tractatus, propositions 4.27 to 5.143 (pp. 38-48).
{Note: The first sentence of 4.27 (on p. 38) could read: “There are 2n possibilities of
existence and non-existence for n states of affairs.”
And 4.42 (on p. 39) could read: “There are 22ⁿ ways
in which n elementary propositions
can agree and disagree with reality.” A simpler way to put it would
be that there are 22ⁿ different propositions that can be formed using n elementary
propositions.
Finally, the first sentence of 4.45 (on p. 40) could read: “There are 22ⁿ possible groups
of truth-conditions for n elementary propositions.”}
January 30: Deadline for first
2 analytic response papers. The purpose of a logical symbolism:
René Descartes (1596-1651), letter to Marin Mersenne from November
20, 1629; G.W.F. Leibniz
(1646-1716), Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas(1684); Frege, “On the scientific justification of a conceptual notation” (1882); and Begriffsschrift (= Conceptual Notation; 1879), “Preface” (this link is the same as one for January 22).” Russell and Alfred North Whitehead
(1861-1947), Principia Mathematica (1910), pp. 1-9, 90-94.
February 1: The nature of logical truth: Lewis Carroll (a.k.a.
C.L. Dodgson; 1832-1898), “What the tortoise said to Achilles” (1895); Russell, The Problems of Philosophy Chapters
X and XI (“On Our Knowledge of Universals” and “On Intuitive Knowledge”), pp.
58-85; also “The Philosophical Importance of Mathematical Logic” (1911); and “Logical Data” from Theory of
Knowledge (1913).
February 6: Tractatus,
propositions 5.15 to 5.5571 (pp. 48-68)
But don’t read the following passages:
5.441 (on p. 54).
5.47 (on p. 56).
5.501, 5.502 (on pp. 58-59).
5.51 (on p. 59).
5.52, 5.521, 5.522, 5.523, 5.524 (on p. 61).
Don’t read the first sentence of
5.525 (on p. 61), but do read the rest of the section.
5.5261 (on p. 62).
5.532, 5.5321 (on p. 63).
5.5352 (on p. 64).
{Note: In 5.4541 (on p. 55), “Simplex sigillum veri” is Latin for
“simplicity is the sign of truth.”
Also, in 5.47321, Occam’s maxim (also known as
“Occam’s razor”) says that entities are not to be multiplied without necessity;
that is, of two theories that explain observed phenomena equally well, we
should prefer the simpler theory; Bertrand Russell appeals frequently to this
principle when speaking about how many logical axioms and logical objects we
should think that there are. Finally, in 5.535 (on p. 63), Russell’s
“axiom of infinity” states that there are an infinite number of individual
objects. Russell needs this to be true in order for his theory of
arithmetic to work.}
February 8: Deadline for first
3 analytic response papers. Tractatus,
propositions 6 to 6.3751 (pp. 70-86).
Do read proposition 6 (on p. 70), but don’t be
scared by it! If you want to understand his symbolism, he explains
it at 5.2521-5.2523 (on pp. 51-52) and 5.5-5.51 (on pp. 58-59). Also see pp. xv-xviii of Russell’s Introduction to the book.
But don’t read the following passages:
6.01, 6.02, 6.021, 6.022, 6.03, 6.031 (on pp. 70-71).
Do read 6.1201 (on p. 72), but skip the last sentence.
6.1203 (on pp. 73-74) is optional. Play around
with it if you like, but the symbolism here really just does the same thing as
the one introduced between 4.3 and 4.46 (on pp. 38-41)
and 5.101 (on pp. 44f).
6.241 (on p. 80) – for heaven’s sake!!
6.36111 (on p. 84).
{Note: in 6.1232 and 6.1233 (on p. 76), Russell’s
“axiom of reducibility” states that every statement about concepts, types of
concepts, etc., can be re-stated, or “reduced”, to a statement about ordinary
old individual objects. He needs this to be true in order for his
theory of types, and hence his theory of arithmetic, to work.
In 6.1264 (on p. 77), modus ponens is the form of
inference from a conditional proposition and the antecedent of the conditional
to the consequent of the conditional. For example, from the
propositions “If it rains, then the streets get wet” and “It rains”, one can
infer that the streets get wet. In logical symbols, modus ponens has
the form: “[(r s) ∙ r] s” .}
February 13 : Tractatus,
propositions 5.6 to 5.641 (pp. 68-70), propositions 6.4 to 7 (pp. 86-89);
“Preface” (pp. 3-4); re-read propositions 4.111 to 4.116 (pp.
29-30). Also read Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679),Leviathan (1655),
Chapter IV “Of Speech”; and Wittgenstein, “A lecture on ethics” (1929).
{Note: in 6.45 (on p. 88), “sub specie aeterni” is Latin for “under the aspect of
eternity.” The philosopher Baruch Spinoza uses this term in his Ethics (1677)
to talk about the mystical, or “intuitive”, way of seeing the world not as a
complicated set of distinct individual things, but as a single unified whole.}
If you have time, at this point you might want to take a step
back to get the big picture of the Tractatus,
by re-reading (in the following order, from left to right)
propositions:
6.1 to 6.1201 (on pp. 71-72), 6.124 to 6.1271 (on pp.
76-78), 2.02 to 2.0212 (on p.
7),
3.23 to 3.26 (on pp. 15-16), 4.12 to 4.1213 (on pp.
30-31), 4.241
to 4.243 (on pp. 36-7),
5.53 to 5.531 (on pp.
62-63), 5.533
to 5.5352 (on pp. 62-63).
February 15: Wittgenstein’s first criticisms of the Tractatus: “Some remarks on logical form” (1929); and the excerpt from G.E. Moore’s “Wittgenstein’s Lectures in 1930-1933.”
II. On Certainty: knowledge and skepticism
(page numbers for On Certainty refer to the
separate edition, not Major Works)
February 20: Russell, The Problems of Philosophy,
chapters I and II (“Appearance and Reality” and “The
Existence of Matter”), pp. 1-16; deadline for first 4 analytic response
papers. Here are some topics for analytic response papers.
February 22: G.E. Moore (1873-1958), “A Defense of Common Sense” (1925), pp. 32-45; “Proof of an External World” (1939), pp. 141-150.
February 27: On Certainty §§1-192
(pp. 2-27); and first paper due.
March 1: On Certainty §§193-454
(pp. 27-58); deadline for first 5 analytic response
papers.
March 6: On Certainty §§455-676
(pp. 59-90).
III. Philosophical
Investigations: Meaning, use, rules, and “private language”
March 8: naming, saying, and
the uses of language: Philosophical Investigations §§1-26;
read Paul Grice (1913-1988), “Logic and Conversation” (1975); deadline for first 6
analytic response papers.
March 20: critique of logical atomism: PI §§27-64.
March 22: games and “family resemblances”: PI §§65-107.
March 27: method in philosophy: PI §§106-137; strongly recommended reading: excerpts from J.L. Austin’s
(1911-1960) How to Do Things with Words (1955). Handout Worksheet Pop-quiz.
March 29: understanding and
rules: PI §§138-184.
April 3: critique of “mentalistic” accounts of understanding and rules: PI §§185-242;
strongly recommended reading: excerpts from John Searle’s (born 1932) Speech Acts (1969); deadline for first 7
analytic response papers.
April 5: What is a “private language” supposed to be? Read the excerpt from Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (1871); and PI §§243-315 (pp. 88-104).
April 10: more on private languages: PI §§316-427.
IV. Philosophy of
psychology: emotions, intentions, and other “mental states”
April 12: intentionality: PI §§428-490,
especially §§428-465; deadline for first 8
analytic response papers.
April 17: the “autonomy of grammar” and against causal theories of
meaning: PI §§491-521.
April 19: more on meaning and use, and identity and difference of
meaning: PI §§521-570; deadline for first 9 analytic response papers.
April 24: methodology in psychology: PI §§571-610; and “the will” and voluntary action: PI §§611-628.
April 26: intending: PI §§629-660; and meaning
something: §§661-693; deadline for first 10 analytic response papers.
Tuesday, May 1: Final paper due by 4pm in the office of the Department of Philosophy and
World Religions, 1089 Bartlett. Please submit a hard copy printout,
not an e-mail attachment.
[*] Note on the Tractatus passages
not to read: Before you start reading the book, save yourself some
time and effort in the long run, and take ten minutes to mark these passages in
some way (red ink, blood, skull and crossbones, etc.).