About the Tractatus, while explaining the similarities and differences between Wittgenstein and Kant with regard to the metaphysics, on the one hand (both track limits, according to which we cannot speak about the subject in the limits of the worlds) and the ontology, on the other (Kant is an empiricist, whereas Wittgenstein holds a realistic ontology), a lecturer suggested that:

Wittgenstein is not a "Kantian idealist"; he may be considered an idealist, but limited to the Schopenhauerian connotation of "idealism".

Can you explain me why, and with regard to which areas investigated in the Tractatus, Wittgenstein may be considered a "Schopenhauerian idealist"?

  • The phrase "metaphysics on the one hand ... and the ontology on the other" doesn't make sense to me. Also, are you sure the lecturer said that Kant is an empiricist and Wittgenstein is a realist? – ChristopherE Apr 23 '16 at 17:10
  • 2
    See Bryan Magee, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer (2002), Ch.14 Schopenhauer's Influence on Wittgenstein, page 310-on, on the relationship between W and Kant-Schopenhauer: "a point which is of general interest about Wittgenstein. There are several respects in which the closest affinity of his thought is with Kant rather than Schopenhauer, but the fact that it was from Schopenhauer that he acquired the entire Kantian corpus of ideas and insights...". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Apr 23 '16 at 17:40
  • @ChristopherE he sayed:""Wittgenstein is a kantian thinker, even if his ontology is realistic, whereas Kant's ontology is empiricist". About the other phrase, what I wanted to express is that Wittgenstein may be considered a kantian thinker if we look at metaphysics in the TLP, whereas he cannot be considered a kantian thinker if we look at the ontology. – franz1 Apr 23 '16 at 17:55
  • Hello. The supposed comment about Schopenhauer doesn't make sense to me. It seems to suggest that Schopenhauer was less idealist than Kant. But in fact he was more. – Ram Tobolski Apr 23 '16 at 19:40
  • 1
    Wittgenstein dispensed with his early affections for Schopenhauer by the time of the Tractatus. It might refer to "nonsense" in it, particularly if the lecturer subscribes to Hacker's "ineffability interpretation", “there are, according to the author of the Tractatus, ineffable truths that can be apprehended". According to Schopenhauer too we have irrational intuition of ineffable World Will, but of course not according to Kant. philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/… Still, "idealism" is a big stretch. – Conifold Apr 24 '16 at 0:35

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.