Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorEngler, Jann Paul
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-12T09:30:18Z
dc.date.available2023-06-12T09:30:18Z
dc.date.issued2023-06-12
dc.identifier287064436
dc.identifier33452824-b3b9-4258-9a57-d5b7d17a1dbd
dc.identifier85161871295
dc.identifier.citationEngler , J P 2023 , ' Wittgenstein on Weyl : the law of the excluded middle and the natural numbers ' , Synthese , vol. 201 , 216 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04199-yen
dc.identifier.issn0039-7857
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/27772
dc.description.abstractIn one of his meetings with members of the Vienna Circle, Wittgenstein discusses Hermann Weyl’s brief conversion to intuitionism and criticizes his arguments against applying the law of the excluded middle to generalizations over the natural numbers. Like Weyl, however, Wittgenstein rejects the classical model theoretic conception of generality when it comes to infinite domains. Nonetheless, he disagrees with him about the reasons for doing so. This paper provides an account of Wittgenstein’s criticism of Weyl that is based on his differing understanding of what a general statement over infinite domains consists in. This difference in their conception of generality is argued to be central to the middle Wittgenstein’s overall stance on intuitionism as well. While Weyl (and other intuitionists) reject the law of the excluded middle on grounds of constructivity, Wittgenstein argues that general statements over infinite domains do not express propositions in the first place. The origin of this position as well as its consequences for contemporary debates on generality are further assessed.
dc.format.extent23
dc.format.extent349243
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofSyntheseen
dc.subjectB Philosophy (General)en
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subjectNISen
dc.subjectMCCen
dc.subject.lccB1en
dc.titleWittgenstein on Weyl : the law of the excluded middle and the natural numbersen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Philosophyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11229-023-04199-y
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record