A Response to Professor McDonough

A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR McDONOUGH Professor McDonough's response to my review of his book on the Tractatus consists of six main points. I will respond to them in sequence. First, Professor McDonough believes that I have ignored the central point of his hook: namely, the contention that the Tractatus embodies a philosophical argument built around certain " fundamental ideas." I have not done so, though an ambiguity in his idea of what that argument is explains why he thinks that I have. By " the argument of the Tractatus " Professor McDonough may mean the pattern of remarks in the text concerning the non-representational status of logical con· stants, the idea that the sole logical constant is the general propositional form, and the idea that the tautological propositions of logic exhibit the framework of possibility for language and the world. In his interpretation of the links among these ideas Professor McDonough neither advances nor strays from the sorts of interpretations other commentators have offered. So in my review I dealt principally with the other side of the ambiguity, in which "the argument of the Tractatus " means an attempt, which Professor McDonough attributes to Wittgenstein, to establish a philosophical discourse about logic, the world, and mind, a discourse not covered by the injunction to silence. It is here that Professor McDonough's reading-as I think we both agree-is eccentric, and it was to this most interesting, though mis· taken, aspect of hi,s argument that I have directed my attention. Second, P1ofessor McDonough seems to suppose that I believe that the import of proposition 7 is that no one can consistently offer interpretative discourse about the Tractatus, and that I, in my remarks, seize special, unfair advantage by offering interpretation and then invoking silence. He charges that I " [make my] own interpretative claims " and that I ·then insist " (conveniently) that one must there· after he silent." By no means. It is only Wittgenstein (or one who endorses the Tractarian doctrines) who is open to a circumstantial ad hominem charge of inconsistency if he offers interpretations. For those of us who try to understand the Tractarian perspective without precisely sharing it, the question of consistency with proposition 7 is not an issue. What is an issue is construing Wittgenstein's doctrines in 327 328 JOHN CHURCHILL such a way that they are consistent with proposition 7. It is here that McDonough's reading is, as I have said, both most interesting and least convincing. Further, in suggesting that I have paid attention to the " conclusions " of his argument but not its substance, Professor McDonough does not do justice to the coherence of his own work. Those aspects of his interpretation to which much of my review is directed-for example, his interpretation of the thought as a " meaning locus "-are essential to the structure of his argument. By focusing my attention there I have shown, I believe, how these elements of his interpretation contribute to his central claim that the Tractatus is built around an argument. Third, he attributes to me the implausible idea that there is a " stand· ard interpretation of ' the plain sense of what Wittgenstein wrote ' " throughout the Tractatus. But I allude to a " plain sense " only in commenting on the injunction to silence about philosophy in proposi· tion 7. Of course there are many interpretative difficulties in the text. Professor McDonough supposes me to be denying that by ignoring the fact that, in the line he quotes from my review, I refer only to proposition 7 and to his attempt to interpret it. Fourth, Professor McDonough takes exception to my use of allusions to some of Wittgenstein's later works to illustrate shortcomings in his interpretation of the Tractatus.. He is quite right in detecting my own underlying assumptions of continuity throughout Wittgenstein's philosophical work. If space to articulate those assumptions was lacking in my review, it is scarcer here. I will simply say that one of the strongest continuities, the concern to see how philosophical inquiry comes to an end, is precisely the thing that Professor McDonough's " argument of the Tractatus " misconstrues. Fifth, Professor McDonough provides a list of seven points at which, he...