Is the Resolute Reading Really Inconsistent?: Trying to Get Clear on Hacker vs. Diamond/Conant

Abstract

The aim of the present paper is to elucidate the metaphilosophical
incommensurability between the two current camps in Tractatus research. To this
end, I will examine Peter Hacker’s claim that the Resolute Reading unconsciously
reintroduces through the back-door the previously banished notion of ‘important
nonsense’. It will be argued that Hacker’s conclusion hinges on a
misunderstanding of the logical structure of Cora Diamond’s mode of speech, thus
disregarding the essential role given to the relationship between the logical
and the psychological in her account of how the reader climbs the nonsensical
rungs of the Tractarian ladder. My contribution is not to opt for either of
these exegeses, but to shed light on the heterogeneity of the metaphilosophical
strategies they see the early Wittgenstein engaged in on the battle-field of
metaphysics.