Advertisement

Mach, Wittgenstein, Science and Logic

  • John PrestonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook book series (VCIY, volume 22)

Abstract

The received view is that Ernst Mach should not be counted as among the important influences on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophical thought. Recently, though, some affinities between their works have been brought to light, and two scholars, Henk Visser and Jaakko Hintikka, have gone beyond this to claim that Wittgenstein took specific and important philosophical ideas about science and logic from Mach. These claims have not been addressed by Wittgenstein scholars, but they do deserve attention. I argue that strong and general claims of positive influence are false, and also that Mach’s influence was not, pace Visser, on the most important aspects of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. But a more accurate picture of the Mach-Wittgenstein relationship will be an ambivalent one, and the received view is untenable.

References

  1. E.C.Banks (2003), Ernst Mach’s World Elements: A Study in Natural Philosophy, (Western Ontario Studies in Philosophy of Science, volume 68), (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).Google Scholar
  2. E.C.Banks (2004), ‘The Philosophical Roots of Ernst Mach’s Economy of Thought’, Synthese, 139, 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. J.W.Cook (1994), Wittgenstein’s Metaphysics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. K.T.Fann (ed.), (1978), Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Man and His Philosophy, (New Jersey: Humanities Press and Sussex: Harvester Press).Google Scholar
  5. R.J.Fogelin, Wittgenstein, 2nd edition (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987).Google Scholar
  6. A.G.Gargani (1980), ‘Wittgenstein’s Conception of Philosophy in Connection with the Work of Ernst Mach and Ludwig Boltzmann’, in R.Haller & W.Grassl (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Wittgenstein Symposium, (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky), 179–81.Google Scholar
  7. A.G.Gargani (1989), ‘The Good Austrian: Ernst Mach, Scientist and Philosopher’, in W.L.Gombocz, H.Rutte & W.Sauer (eds.), Traditionen und Perspektiven der analytischen Philosophie, (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky), 135–48.Google Scholar
  8. N.Garver (1994), This Complicated Form of Life: Essays on Wittgenstein, (Chicago: Open Court).Google Scholar
  9. H-J.Glock (1997), ‘Kant and Wittgenstein: Philosophy, Necessity and Representation’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 5, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. R.Harré (2001), ‘Wittgenstein: Science and Religion’, Philosophy, 76, 211–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. H.Hertz (1956), The Principles of Mechanics, presented in a new form, Trans. D.E.Jones & J.T.Walley, intr. R.S.Cohen. (New York: Dover Publications).Google Scholar
  12. K.J.J.Hintikka (2001), ‘Ernst Mach at the Crossroads of Twentieth-Century Philosophy’, in J.Floyd & S.Shieh (eds.), Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth Century Philosophy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 81–100.Google Scholar
  13. A.S.Janik & S.E.Toulmin (1973), Wittgenstein’s Vienna, (New York: Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar
  14. I.Kant (1781/1787/1929), Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N.Kemp Smith (London: Macmillan, 1929).Google Scholar
  15. W.Kneale & M.Kneale (1962), The Development of Logic, (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  16. M.Kusch (1995), Psychologism, (London & New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  17. B.F.McGuinness (1988), Wittgenstein, A Life: Young Ludwig 1889–1921, (London: Penguin Books).Google Scholar
  18. B.F.McGuinness (1989), ‘Ernst Mach and his Influence on Austrian Thinkers’, in W.L.Gombocz, H.Rutte & W.Sauer (eds.), Traditionen und Perspektiven der analytischen Philosophie, (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky), 149–56.Google Scholar
  19. B.F.McGuinness (2002), Approaches to Wittgenstein: Collected Papers, (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. E.Mach (1872/1911), Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit, (Prag: Clave, 1872). Translated by P.E.B.Jourdain as History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1911).Google Scholar
  21. E.Mach (1883/1960), Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung historisch-kritish dargestellt, (Leipzig: F.A.Brockhaus, 1883. Further German editions in 1888, 1897, 1901, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1921, 1933). Translated by T.J.McCormack as The Science of Mechanics, A Critical and Historical Exposition of its Principles, (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, and London: Watts & Co., 1893. Further editions, 1902, 1907, 1915, 1919, 1942, 1960).Google Scholar
  22. E.Mach (1886/1897), Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1886). Translated by C.M. Williams as Contributions to the Analysis of the Sensations, (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1897).Google Scholar
  23. E.Mach (1886/1914), Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1886. Further German editions in 1900, 1902, 1903, 1906, 1911, 1918, 1922). Translated by C.M.Williams & S.Waterlow as The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical, (Chicago & London: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1914, reprinted New York: Dover Publications, 1959).Google Scholar
  24. E.Mach (1896/1910), Populär-wissenschaftliche Vorlesungen, (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1896. Further German editions, 1897, 1903, 1910, 1923). Translated by T.J.McCormack as Popular Scientific Lectures, (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1895. Further editions, 1897, 1898, reprinted 1910).Google Scholar
  25. E.Mach (1896/1986), Die Principien der Wärmelehre, historisch-kritisch entwickelt, (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1896. Further German editions, 1900, 1919). Translated as Principles of the Theory of Heat, Historically and Critically Elucidated, ed. B.F.McGuinness, (Dordrecht: D.Reidel, 1986).Google Scholar
  26. E.Mach (1903), ‘Critique of the Concept of Temperature’, The Open Court, 17, 1903, 95–103, and 154–161.Google Scholar
  27. E.Mach (1905/1976), Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung, (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1905. Further German editions, 1906, 1917, 1920, 1926). Translated by T.J.McCormack & P.Foulkes as Knowledge and Error: Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry, (Dordrecht: D.Reidel, 1976).Google Scholar
  28. E.Mach (1910), ‘Eine Betrachtung über Zeit und Raum’, Das Wissen für Alle, Vienna. (Reprinted in the fourth German edition of Mach (1896/1910). Page references here are to this reprint).Google Scholar
  29. K.Mulligan & B.Smith (1988), ‘Mach and Ehrenfels: The Foundations of Gestalt Theory’, in B.Smith (ed.), Foundations of Gestalt Theory, (Munich & Vienna: Philosophia Verlag), 124–157.Google Scholar
  30. R.Monk (1990), Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, (London: Jonathan Cape).Google Scholar
  31. Preston (2006), ‘Harré on Hertz and the Tractatus’, Philosophy, 81, 357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Preston (2008), ‘Hertz, Wittgenstein, and Philosophical Method’, Philosophical Investigations, 31, 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. B.Russell (1903), The Principles of Mathematics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  34. G.Ryle (1951), ‘Ludwig Wittgenstein’, Analysis, 12, reprinted in K.T.Fann (ed.), Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Man and his Philosophy, (New Jersey: Humanities Press and Sussex: Harvester Press, 1978), 116–24.Google Scholar
  35. A.Schopenhauer (1813/1974), On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, (LaSalle, IL: Open Court).Google Scholar
  36. E.Stenius (1960), Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: A Critical Exposition of its Main Lines of Thought, (Oxford: Blackwell, and Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  37. H.Visser (1981), ‘Wittgenstein as a Non-Kantian Philosopher’, in E.Morscher & R.Stranzinger (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Wittgenstein Symposium, 1980, (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky), 399–405.Google Scholar
  38. H.Visser (1982), ‘Wittgenstein’s Debt to Mach’s Popular Scientific Lectures’, Mind, 91, 102–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. H.Visser (1983), ‘Mach’s Method in Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy’, in P.Weingartner & J.Czermak (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Wittgenstein Symposium: Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky), 529–33.Google Scholar
  40. H.Visser (2001), ‘Wittgenstein’s Machist Sources’, in J.Blackmore, R.Itagaki & S.Tanaka (eds.), Ernst Mach’s Vienna 1895–1930, (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 139–58.Google Scholar
  41. L.Wittgenstein (1921), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by D.F.Pears & B.F.McGuinness (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961).Google Scholar
  42. L.Wittgenstein (1971), Prototractatus, an early version of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, ed. B.F.McGuinness, T.Nyberg & G.H.von Wright (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  43. L.Wittgenstein (1975), Philosophical Remarks, ed. R.Rhees, trans. R.Hargreaves & R.White (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  44. L.Wittgenstein (1979a), Notebooks, 1914–1916, 2nd edition, ed. G.H.von Wright & G.E.M.Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  45. L.Wittgenstein (1979b), Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge 1932–1935, ed. A.Ambrose (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  46. L.Wittgenstein (1995), Cambridge Letters: Correspondence with Russell, Keynes, Moore, Ramsey and Sraffa, ed. B.F.McGuinness & G.H.von Wright (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  47. L.Wittgenstein (2003), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Public and Private Occasions, ed. J.C.Klagge & A.Nordmann (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe University of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations