Skip to content
Analiza i Egzystencja
47 (2019)
OpenAlex

For the whole journal, according to OpenAlex.

Citations
196
Publications
300
H-index
6
I10-index
2
Mean citedness (2 years)
0.14
Citations received by year
Journal citation chart. Exact values are available in the table below. 2017: 0 2018: 12 2019: 6 2020: 13 2021: 25 2022: 23 2023: 16 2024: 33 2025: 36 2026: 30 2017 2026
Show data table
Citations received by year
YearPublicationsCitations
2017250
20182312
2019236
20202013
20212125
20222623
20232516
20242633
20252536
20262030

Data retrieved:

What do these numbers mean?

Publications and citations cover records linked to this journal in OpenAlex. H-index is the largest number h of publications with at least h citations each. I10-index counts publications cited at least 10 times. The chart shows citations received in each year; the current year is incomplete. Coverage may differ from WNUS and other services.

The 2-year mean is an OpenAlex metric. It is not the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.

View in OpenAlex (new tab)
Google Scholar
Find in Google Scholar (new tab)

Meaning before Subjectivity: The Primäre Sprache of the Tractatus

DOI: 10.18276/aie.2019.47-04
Cite

The full text is available

ISSN:1734-9923
eISSN:2300-7621
Authors: Jakub Gomułka ORCID
Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego im. KEN w Krakowie
Keywords: Ludwig Wittgenstein Heinrich Hertz Gottlob Frege transcendental subjectivity elementary propositions logic
Issue / book publication date:2019
Page range:24 (79-102)
OAI-PMH:Metadata
CC BY-SA Open Access DOAJ ERIH PLUS Scopus Diamond Discovery Hub
QR code

Abstract

I defend an interpretation of the Tractatus based on the following three theses: 1) The Wittgenstein’s work offers a double-layered vision of language, similar to the vision developed during his brief phenomenological period. 2) The so-called Tractarian ontology is actually a purely formal construction, entailed by the structure of what we shall refer to as the inner layer of language. 3) It should be recognized that the metaphysical residuum within the early Wittgenstein’s thought is a certain minimal form of transcendentalism, according to which language – or strictly speaking its ore – performs the function of the transcendental subject for itself. A crucial element of my position is the conclusion that, according to the Tractarian conception of language, the meaning of propositions is not only independent of empirical subjects, but also the condition of their possibility. This amounts to a resolute adaptation of Frege’s principled anti-psychologism on Wittgenstein’s part.

Supplementary materials

04_gomulka.j_gomulka_-_primare_sprache_final.pdf Pobierz

PDF

Download PDF
Preview PDF

Open PDF

Bibliography (41)
  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1965). An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s ‘Tractatus’ (II). New York: Harper & Row.
  2. Bizarro, S. (2011). A Hertzian Interpretation of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de La Universidad Del Norte, 13, 150–165.
  3. Brockhaus, R. R. (1991). Pulling Up the Ladder: The Metaphysical Roots of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company.
  4. Conant, J. (2000). Elucidation and Nonsense in Frege and Early Wittgenstein. In A. Crary & R. J. Read (Eds.), The New Wittgenstein (pp. 174–217). London: Routledge.
  5. Diamond, C. (2000). Ethics, Imagination and the Method of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. In A. Crary & R. J. Read (Eds.), The New Wittgenstein (pp. 149–173). London: Routledge.
  6. Diamond, C. (2013). Peter Winch on the Tractatus and the unity of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. In A. Pichler & S. Säätelä (Eds.), Wittgenstein: The Philosopher and his Works (Vol. 2, pp. 141–171). Frankfurt am Main: Ontos Verlag.
  7. Eisenthal, J. (unpublished). Models and Multiplicities.
  8. Frascolla, P. (1994). Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics. London: Routledge.
  9. Frege, G. (1984). Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy. (B. McGuinness, Ed., M. Black, V. H. Dudman, P. Geach, H. Kaal, E.-H. W. Kluge, B. McGuinness, & R. H. Stoothoff, Trans.). Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell.
  10. Gomułka, J. (2019). The Other Wittgenstein: The Philosophical Implications of Denkbewegungen and their Relation to the Development of Wittgenstein’s ‘Official’ Philosophy. In I. Somavilla, C. Humphries and B. Sieradzka-Baziur (Eds.), Wittgensteins Denkbewegungen (Tagebücher 1930–1932/1936–1937) aus interdisziplinärer Sicht / Wittgenstein’s Denkbewegungen (Diaries 1930–1932/1936–1937): Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.
  11. Graßhoff, G. (1997). Hertzian Objects in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 5(1), 87 – 120.
  12. Griffin, J. (1964). Wittgenstein’s Logical Atomism (Vol. 16). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  13. Hacker, P. M. S. (1999). Naming, Thinking and Meaning in the Tractatus. Philosophical Investigations, 22(2), 119–135.
  14. Hintikka, J. (1958). On Wittgenstein’s ‘Solipsism’. Mind, 67(265), 88–91.
  15. Hintikka, J. (2011). The Crash of the Philosophy of the Tractatus: The Testimony of Wittgenstein’s Notebooks in October 1929. In E. D. Pellegrin (Ed.), Interactive Wittgenstein (pp. 153–169). Dordrecht: Springer.
  16. Hintikka, M., & Hintikka, J. (1986). Investigating Wittgenstein. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  17. Kremer, M. (1997). Contextualism and Holism in the Early Wittgenstein: From Prototractatus to Tractatus. Philosophical Topics, 25(2), 87–120.
  18. Malcolm, N. (1977). Memory and Mind (Vol. 28). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  19. Marion, M. (2003). Wittgenstein and Brouwer. Synthese, 137(1–2), 103–127.
  20. Markewitz Markewitz, S. (2019). Wittgensteins Kritik des a priori in den Denkbewegungen. In I. Somavilla, C. Humphries and B. Sieradzka-Baziur (Eds.), Wittgensteins Denkbewegungen (Tagebücher 1930–1932/1936–1937) aus interdisziplinärer Sicht / Wittgenstein’s Denkbewegungen (Diaries 1930–1932/1936–1937): Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 55–81). Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.
  21. McGinn, M. (2006). Elucidating the Tractatus: Wittgenstein’s Early Philosophy of Logic and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. McGinn, M. (2013). Wittgenstein’s Early Philosophy of Language and the Idea of ‘the Single Great Problem’. In A. Pichler & S. Säätelä (Eds.), Wittgenstein: The Philosopher and his Works (Vol. 2, pp. 107–140). Frankfurt am Main: Ontos Verlag.
  23. Monk, R. (1990). Ludwig Wittgenstein: the Duty of Genius. London: Penguin Books.
  24. Monk, R. (2014). The Temptations of Phenomenology: Wittgenstein, the Synthetic a Priori and the ‘Analytic a Posteriori’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 22(3), 312–340.
  25. Park, B.-C. (1998). Phenomenological Aspects of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic.
  26. Potter, M. (2008). Wittgenstein’s Notes on Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Proops, I. (2000). Logic and Language in Wittgenstein’s ‘Tractatus’. New York and London: Garland.
  28. Rhees, R. (1970). Discussions of Wittgenstein. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  29. Rotter, K. (2006). Gramatyka filozoficzna w dobie sporu o podstawy matematyki. Eseje o drugiej filozofii Wittgensteina. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
  30. Russell, B. (1905). On Denoting. Mind, 14(56), 479–493.
  31. Sluga, H. (1996). “Whose house is that?” Wittgenstein on the self. In H. D. Sluga & D. G. Stern (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein (pp. 320–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Stern, D. G. (1995). Wittgenstein on Mind and Language (Vol. 105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Vrahimis, A. (2014). Wittgenstein and the Phenomenological Movement: Reply to Monk. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 22(3), 341–348.
  34. Winch, P. G. (1995). Discussion of Malcolm’s Essay. In N. Malcolm & P. G. Winch, Wittgenstein: A Religious Point of View? (pp. 95–135). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  35. Wittgenstein, L. (1929). Some Remarks on Logical Form. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 9, 162–171.
  36. Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge 1930-1932. From the Notes of John King and Desmond Lee. (D. Lee, Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  37. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. (D. F. Pears & B. F. McGuinness, Trans.). London and New York: Routledge.
  38. Wittgenstein, L. (2008). Wittgenstein in Cambridge: Letters and Documents 1911-1951. (B. McGuinness, Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  39. Wittgenstein, L. (2016). Wittgenstein Nachlass. The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen. Retrieved from http://wab.uib.no
  40. Wittgenstein, L., 1889-1951. (2009). Philosophical Investigations (Rev. 4th ed. by P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  41. Zahavi, D., & Overgaard, S. (2008). Understanding (Other) Minds: Wittgenstein’s Phenomenological Contribution. In D. K. Levy and E. Zamuner (Eds.), Wittgenstein’s Enduring Arguments. London: Routledge.