Is It Necessary for Practice to Be Interpreted? L. Wittgenstein, H. Putnam and the Problem of Scientific Cognition

P. 143–148.

Pavlov I.

This paper deals with two philosophical approaches to the problem of practice and its interpretation. It is demonstrated that there is a significant difference between L. Wittgenstein’s and H. Putnam’s theories of practice. According to Wittgenstein, an actor should not interpret the practice and reveal some implied sense for correct rule following. But Putnam argues that without interpretation the practice cannot provide the reference of our language’s terms to the reality. This article demonstrates that this difference in Wittgenstein’s and Putnam’s theories of practice is connected with their philosophical understanding of science and possibility of scientific cognition.

Keywords: science, interpretation, practice, pragmatism, rule-following

Publication based on the results of: Rationality in action: intentions, interpretations and interactions (2015)

In book

Rationality in Action: Intentions, Interpretations and Interactions

St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2015.