[Serious Phil] Wittgenstein on names

[larry_tapper]

Stuart and Walto,

My two cents on this is that it's not so clear that Wittgenstein actually did subscribe to the cluster theory. I think that's a kind of flatfooted reading of the famous Moses passage, PI #79.

You may recall that I floated this argument in Analytic some time ago:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analytic/message/20808

Since then I've noticed that Boersema has made a similar complaint:

http://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=eip&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dwittgenstein%2520cluster%2520theory%2520names%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CFEQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fcommons.pacificu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1002%2526context%253Deip%26ei%3DtgzUT_D9J5Ki8QSRzIzyAw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHdEZHctKkW9F7Y1LZJWRVTTWB-VQ#search=%22wittgenstein%20cluster%20theory%20names%22 

See especially footnote 1: my take on the matter is similar to Linsky's.

That said, it doesn't matter much as far as explaining Kripke's critique is concerned. Searle (thinking he was refining LW's view) is one who definitely did propose a cluster theory, and we can always read Kripke as refuting Searle's account rather than LW's.

LT 

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "walto" <Philscimind@> wrote:
>  
> > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "seanwilsonorg" <ludwig.sean@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "walto" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. Putnam, Kripke et al did not, and could not, think at the level Wittgenstein did, and never produced anything that either he or I would agree damaged his central insights. All that you have said here is: I don't fully understand. The fact of how you characterize my views and the words you use shews this. 
> > > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > I don't know what Kripke you have read, but it's obvious that you have not understood "Naming and Necessity" at all.  Witt's cluster theory of names is false.
> > 
> > W
> > 
> 
> 
> I've read Naming and Necessity and have admitted not really understanding it. I once asked you to elaborate on his account in those lectures and, as I recall, you actually started to before we had one of our frequent fallings out again. I would still appreciate it if you would provide your take on WHY you think Kripke's account demonstrates Wittgenstein's cluster theory of names is false.
> 
> Perhaps we could actually take a break here from the endless rounds of zings and recriminations and address a substantive question in philosophy for a change????
> 
> SWM 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Philscimind mailing list
> Philscimind at ...
>