Misreadings, clarifications and reminders: a reply to Hutchinson and Read
It has been argued that my reading of the Tractatus has an Achilles’ heel. Its fatal flaw is that it does not adequately deal with the challenge posed by what Wittgenstein says in remark 6.54 (Hutchinson and Read, 2006: pp. 4, 9, 11). It seems that the sort of reading I propose fails to provide a satisfactory basis for attributing to Wittgenstein an adequate motive for his insisting that the Tractarian remarks must be ‘thrown away’. Certainly my critics hit the nail on the head in stating what I think Wittgenstein’s motive might have been: they write that ‘for Hutto, they [the so-called elucidations] are thought to be nonsense by Wittgenstein because they are not fact-stating’ (Hutchinson and Read, 2006: p. 9, italics in the original). For other complaints see Read (2004).