I sometimes imagine that a philosophical dispute goes like
a tennis game. You can
easily say where is the ball and who is at turn to hit it.
My point here is that we have an argument from Wittgenstein and
now is our turn to reply to it. That is to say, in order to
constitute a coherent argument, Wittgenstein's position does
not need to be supplemented with other theses (but only
clarified, or mapped into a clearer scheme).
Note: I did not provided an entire
reconstructed argument here, but only a sketch for an argument.
Back