Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (1) : 35-53
Orginal Article
Was Wittgenstein an Analytic Philosopher? Wittgenstein vs Russell
Stewart Candlish()
M204: Philosophy, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
Download: PDF(297 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

This article is in six main sections. In the first three sections, some indication of how and why philosophers have differed in their response to the title question is given by describing Wittgenstein’s encounters with Carnap, and by examining Wittgenstein’s commitment to clarity and argument in philosophy, illustrating this commitment by reference to his Philosophical Investigations discussion of the will. In the remaining three sections, Russell is taken as a paradigm example of a central kind of analytic philosopher. The answer to the title question is unfolded by sketching Wittgenstein’s and Russell’s treatments of a few philosophical topics and problems, focusing on theories and questions surrounding propositions, judgments, and their constituents, in particular Russell’s multiple relation theory of judgment and the question of the unity of the proposition. This approach displays, and does not merely assert, Russell’s deployment of (sometimes repeated variants of) technical solutions to philosophical problems and how that deployment contrasts with Wittgenstein’s attempts to make such problems disappear.

Keywords Wittgenstein      Russell      clarity      relations      propositions      unity     
Issue Date: 01 April 2016
 Cite this article:   
Stewart Candlish. Was Wittgenstein an Analytic Philosopher? Wittgenstein vs Russell[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 35-53.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Stewart Candlish
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] ZHANG Ligeng. Wittgenstein’s Peculiar Use of “Internal Relation” in Aspect-Seeing[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 143-159.
[2] QIAO Qingju. Feng Youlan’s Research into the History of Philosophy and Philosophical Creation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 23-38.
[3] LI Guo. Empirical Propositions and the Change of Language- Games[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 21-34.
[4] LAN Fei. Humanity and Paternal Eros: The Father-Son Relationship in Comparative Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 629-646.
[5] Richard Shusterman. Somaesthetics and Chinese Philosophy: Between Unity and Pragmatist Pluralism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 201-211.
[6] Roger T. Ames. “Bodyheartminding” (Xin 心): Reconceiving the Inner Self and the Outer World in the Language of Holographic Focus and Field[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 167-180.
[7] Hektor K. T. Yan. Beyond a Theory of Human Nature: Towards an Alternative Interpretation of Mencius’ Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 396-416.
[8] ZHU Wanrun. A Zero-Relationship Justification of Rights: A Contractual Approach Based on Rawls’ Device of the “Original Position”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 21-38.
[9] Bernard Linsky. Russell’s Paradox of Predicates[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 149-165.
[10] Thierry Lucas. Parallelism in the Early Moist Texts[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(2): 289-308.
[11] TANG Siufu. Self and Community in the Xunzi[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(3): 455-470.
[12] LI Shuhua. Natural Philosophy of Zhouyi and Life Practice[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(2): 179-190.
[13] DING Weixiang. Zhu Xi’s Choice, Historical Criticism and Influence—An Analysis of Zhu Xi’s Relationship with Confucianism and Buddhism[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 521-548.
[14] XIANG Shiling. Inquiry into the Transcendence of Tang Dynasty Confucians to Han Dynasty Confucians and the Transformation of Traditional Confucianism in Terms of Lunyu Bijie[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2010, 5(4): 471-485.
[15] ZHANG Xianglong, . The philosophical feature of Confucianism and its position in inter-cultural dialogue: Universalism or non-universalism?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(4): 483-492.
Full text