Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"

I consider Plato’s argument, in the dialogue Cratylus, against both of two opposed views of the “correctness of names.” The first is a conventionalist view, according to which this relationship is arbitrary, the product of a free inaugural decision made at the moment of the first institution of name...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Paul M Livingston
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nordic Wittgenstein Society 2015-12-01
Series:Nordic Wittgenstein Review
Online Access:http://www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com/article/view/3394
id doaj-f080aa10d8dc484a9613bfefe1af7b1c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f080aa10d8dc484a9613bfefe1af7b1c2020-11-24T21:23:56ZengNordic Wittgenstein SocietyNordic Wittgenstein Review2194-68252242-248X2015-12-017383394Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"Paul M Livingston0University of New MexicoI consider Plato’s argument, in the dialogue Cratylus, against both of two opposed views of the “correctness of names.” The first is a conventionalist view, according to which this relationship is arbitrary, the product of a free inaugural decision made at the moment of the first institution of names. The second is a naturalist view, according to which the correctness of names is initially fixed and subsequently maintained by some kind of natural assignment, rooted in the things themselves. I argue that: 1) Plato’s critical challenge to both views anticipates considerations introduced by Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations’ consideration of rules and rule-following; 2) Understanding Plato’s appeal to the “form” [eidos] of a thing in resolving the problems of both views helps to explicate Wittgenstein’s own appeal to “forms of life” as the “given” ground of linguistic practice; and 3) We should not understand the grounding of language in form-of-life either as a (conventionalist) basis in the plural practices of different communities, or as a biological/anthropological basis in the specific nature of the human organism. Rather, it points to an autonomous dimension of form, which articulates the relationship between language and life as it relates to the possibility of truth.http://www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com/article/view/3394
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Paul M Livingston
spellingShingle Paul M Livingston
Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"
Nordic Wittgenstein Review
author_facet Paul M Livingston
author_sort Paul M Livingston
title Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"
title_short Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"
title_full Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"
title_fullStr Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"
title_full_unstemmed Naturalism, Conventionalism, and Forms of Life: Wittgenstein and the "Cratylus"
title_sort naturalism, conventionalism, and forms of life: wittgenstein and the "cratylus"
publisher Nordic Wittgenstein Society
series Nordic Wittgenstein Review
issn 2194-6825
2242-248X
publishDate 2015-12-01
description I consider Plato’s argument, in the dialogue Cratylus, against both of two opposed views of the “correctness of names.” The first is a conventionalist view, according to which this relationship is arbitrary, the product of a free inaugural decision made at the moment of the first institution of names. The second is a naturalist view, according to which the correctness of names is initially fixed and subsequently maintained by some kind of natural assignment, rooted in the things themselves. I argue that: 1) Plato’s critical challenge to both views anticipates considerations introduced by Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations’ consideration of rules and rule-following; 2) Understanding Plato’s appeal to the “form” [eidos] of a thing in resolving the problems of both views helps to explicate Wittgenstein’s own appeal to “forms of life” as the “given” ground of linguistic practice; and 3) We should not understand the grounding of language in form-of-life either as a (conventionalist) basis in the plural practices of different communities, or as a biological/anthropological basis in the specific nature of the human organism. Rather, it points to an autonomous dimension of form, which articulates the relationship between language and life as it relates to the possibility of truth.
url http://www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com/article/view/3394
work_keys_str_mv AT paulmlivingston naturalismconventionalismandformsoflifewittgensteinandthecratylus
_version_ 1725990270700355584