Mauthner versus Wittgenstein

Mauthner esteemed language as a philosophical inquiry. He measured the philosophical entailments between language and reality and the consequent knowledge produced by such entailments. He questioned language’s aptitude to express and represent reality and, according to him, language is a critical source of knowledge and an unfaithful representation of reality, because there is a gap between language and reality, i.e. language distorts perception and engenders false and fictitious assumptions about reality. Language fosters superstition, creates gods and idols and exerts a dominating power over the intellect. Mauthner pointed out a critique of language based on metaphors, which would serve to address and clarify the deformation of reality. Wittgenstein, unlike himself suggested, was inspired by Mauthner. Both showed interest toward the critical analysis of language and there are many conceptual similarities between their language’s conceptions (e.g. concerning the use of metaphors to understand language). Therefore, this paper seeks a) to emphasize Mauthner’s metaphors on language as an accurate interpretation regarding the philosophical entailments between language and reality, and b) to demonstrate the epistemological legacy of Mauthner’s critique of language to Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language.

Invisible cities: the table of contents and the labyrinths of reality

In Invisible Cities (1972), Italo Calvino contrasts a rigid outline structure with a flexible textual content. The tension comprised by the numerical structure proposed in the table of contents stands out against the set of polissemic texts which make up the subject matter of the book. The opposition between form and content point to a fruitful dichotomy in the conception of the novel linked to the theories of the open and closed work. This essay will investigate the structural construction of Invisible Cities by looking at its table of contents, seeking to discuss some models of formalistic representation proposed by the criticism and the specific contribution they may, or may not, provide. The objective is to analyse the pertinence of such theories in the light of historical and cultural approaches. Aiming to uncover possible meanings which arise from the debate, this essay will question to what extent structural complexities can be considered literary if they are not ultimately related to the culture in which a text is found.