مطالعه انتقادي تفسير پل هورويچ از فرا فلسفه ويتگنشتاين

The philosophy of the later Wittgenstein moves beyond traditional philosophy an‎d sets boundaries for philosophical discussions. His method is therapeutic, viewing philosophy as a means of treatment an‎d the resolution of misunderstan‎dings, an‎d not only challenges traditional philosophy, but also provides the ground for clarity of thought an‎d language by showing the root of linguistic misunderstan‎dings. This research aims to examine the meta-philosophical aspects of Wittgenstein’s thought with a focus on Horwich’s interpretation. The main issue is how an‎d with what interpretation does Horwich readout Wittgenestein’s metaphilosophical perspective an‎d how much this readout compatible with Wittgenestein’s thought? This research is not merely an "explanation" of Horwich’s interpretation, but has analytical value. The significance of this study lies in the fact that he raises the issue of language analysis an‎d the use of words. Moreover, his attention to the idea that philosophy can provide a basis for rethinking an‎d reconsideration further underlines the importance of this research. Few philosophers have paid as much attention to the role of language in philosophy an‎d its impact on creating problems as Wittgenestein, an‎d it seems that Horwich, despite some flaws in his interpretation, has been able to show this role well. Moreover, this topic has been studied very little so far, an‎d this book has not been translated yet. This thesis can shed light on Horwich’s contribution to the contemporary interpretation of Wittgenestein’s philosophy. The reason for choosing this topic for research is his interest in the philosophy of language an‎d, in fact, the relationship that philosophy can have with everyday life. At first glance, the title of Horwich’s book seemed interesting an‎d thought-provoking, raising the question of what is the main difference between Wittgenestein’s philosophy an‎d other philosophers’s philosophy? This led us to examine Horwich’s interpretation. The findings of the study show that Horwich emphasizes the anti-theoretical an‎d language centered aspect of Wittgenestein’s later philosophy. However, it seems that some of his interpretations take on a theoretical color an‎d flavor. Therefore, there are inconsistencies in his interpretation an‎d Horwich has not been able to fully preserve the anti-theoretical spirit of Wittgenestein’s later philosophy. Horwich should have been more carefule not to theorize himself an‎d not go beyond the boundaries of description. He should have been aware that presenting a structure is a form of theorizing. By observing these points, his interpretation could have been closer to Wittgenestein’s intention.

7