this does not resolve the problem , it simply restates a symptom of the problem . Isomorphism is certainly an important aspect of the Tractatus ( it is the similarity of form that allows propositions and pictures to have a sense of objects they pertain ), but the isomorphism that Moore ( 2013 ) sketches is admittedly rough and at worst , overstated . Sullivan ( 2013 ) probes the outline further and highlights that there is nothing to suggest that what is beyond the limitations presented at the TLP 6.4s that Wittgenstein has anything distinctly Kantian in mind .
CONCLUSION A larger portion than I wished of this paper has been dedicated to clarifying what the relationship between transcendental idealism and Wittgenstein ’ s Tractatus is , and I hope I have achieved that . I believe the conversation between Moore and Sullivan runs parallel to the wider exegetical debate between the new and traditional readings of the Tractatus , as both are trying to claim they have reached a privileged understanding of Wittgenstein . In an ironic twist , much of the conversation between the two has been under the guise of clarifying each other ’ s misunderstandings , and at times Moore has been uncertain whether there is a misunderstanding at all ( 2011 )— this has not made the task of clarifying their discussion any easier . Though I have limited the scope to the Tractatus , an equal portion of their conversation has been about Wittgenstein ’ s later works , and whilst not pertaining to the current essay , it is worth acknowledging the length and breadth they have covered . Ultimately , I consider a lot of this exegetical debate to be the very thing Wittgenstein is warning against : attempting to state what something is . Therefore , a lot of the discussion can be rather speculative ( if still thought provoking ). Nonetheless Sullivan has challenged a position that Moore had taken for granted ( 2013 ) and it has produced some enlightening exegetical interpretation . Currently , it appears any answer to the primary question remains ambiguous , though presently I am inclined to agree with Sullivan as there appears little in the way of clear evidence to suggest that the author of the Tractatus was a transcendental idealist , rather than simply warning against its allure .
BIBLIOGRAPHY : Mcginn , M . ( 2006 ). Elucidating the Tractatus : Wittgenstein ’ s early philosophy of logic and language . Oxford : Clarendon .
Moore , A . W . ( 2003 ). Ineffability and Nonsense .
Moore , A . W . ( 2006 ). Points of view . Oxford Oxford University Press .
Moore , A . W . ( 2011 ). A Response to Sullivan . In : BEYOND THE TRACTATUS WARS : The New Wittgenstein Debate . Routledge .
Moore , A . W . ( 2012 ). The evolution of modern metaphysics : making sense of things . New York : Cambridge University Press .
Moore , A . W . ( 2013 ). Was the author of the Tractatus a transcendental idealist ? In :
Wittgenstein ’ s Tractatus : History and Interpretation . Oxford University Press .
Sullivan , P . ( 2003 ). Ineffability and Nonsense .
Sullivan , P . ( 2011 ). Synthesising Without Concepts . In : BEYOND the TRACTATUS WARS : the New Wittgenstein Debate . Routledge .
SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 2021 / 2022
142