Tension in early-Wittgenstein’s critique of set theory


I was doing some light reading this morning and I learned that Wittgenstein’s critique of the intension/extensional distinction begins in his early periods.  I find that fascinating since, together with his critique of Russell’s philosophy of mathematics in the Tractatus, there seems to be a tension that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does a much better job of explaining–sorry, I don’t have sufficient expertise in his early period to warrant an attempt 😉

If you’re interested, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, by Victor Rodych.

(source: Rodych, Victor, “Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/&gt;.)

Advertisements

One thought on “Tension in early-Wittgenstein’s critique of set theory

  1. You should read Garciadiego’s book on Russell and the set-theoretic paradoxes. You don’t understand the issues–neither did Wittgenstein.

    Ryskamp, John Henry, “Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas” (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s