?
Сравнительный анализ двух интерпретаций Логико-философского трактата
This article provides the comparative analysis of the two main interpretations of the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, written by Ludwig Wittgenstein: the standard and the resolute reading. The author argues that both readings primarily focus on solving the Tractatus’ Nonsense paradox, i.e. they attempt to answer the question about how the Tractatus can declare its own senselessness. In my opinion, the resolute reading explains the Tractatus better, since it doesn’t build any frameworks that are alien to the Tractatus, unlike the standard reading, critics of which is main intension of the resolute reading. I think, it’s impossible to formalize the arguments of the Tractatus, and that’s why one should think over the Nonsense paradox and accept it, while not trying to solve it. In my opinion, Parmenides’ argument about non-being is a good illustration to this paradox.
