E-catalog        

Библиогр.: 15 назв.

Приводится ряд аргументов против тезиса, отстаиваемого В.А. Ладовым. Демон-стрируется, что основоположения теории символизма Витгенштейна не соотно-сятся с ее практическими возможностями: ни одна из приведенных в статье интер-претаций теории символизма не допускает возможности постулировать иерархическую типологизацию вне контекста иерархической модели мышления. Предполагается, что теория Витгенштейна не имеет принципиального преимуще-ства перед теорией типов в решении проблемы парадоксов. The article is a response to a work by Vsevolod Ladov, which is devoted to the discussion of the views of the “early” Wittgenstein on the problem of logical paradoxes. It follows from Ladov’s work that Wittgenstein’s position, preceding the TLP period, is the most radical version of the hierarchical approach, which has a more significant argumentation potential than Russell’s theory of logical types. According to Ladov, taking into account the spatial-graphic syntax model proposed by Wittgenstein, problems associated with self-referential identities should be resolved without any additional theoretical study. In contrast to the criticism of the theory of types, criticism of the theory of types in the works of the “early” Wittgenstein is of a different nature. It focuses not on the denial of the theory of types itself, but on the fact that its postulation turns out to be simply redundant for the logical-theoretical analysis. This article provides a number of ar-guments against the thesis Ladov defends. It is shown that the foundations of Wittgenstein’s theory of sym-bolism do not correlate with the operation of the principles it establishes: none of the possible interpreta-tions of this theory can avoid the need for hierarchical typology.