Abstract:With a few notable exceptions formal semantics, as it originated from the seminal work of Richard Montague, Donald Davidson, Max Cresswell, David Lewis and others, in the late sixties and early seventies of the previous century, does not consider Wittgenstein as one of its ancestors. That honour is bestowed on Frege, Tarski, Carnap. And so it has been in later developments. Most introductions to the subject will refer to Frege and Tarski (Carnap less frequently) —in addition to the pioneers just mentioned, of course— , and discuss the main elements of their work that helped shape formal semantics in some detail. But Wittgenstein is conspicuously absent whenever the history of the subject is mentioned (usually briefly, if at all). Of course, if one thinks of Wittgenstein’s later work, this is obvious: nothing, it seems, could be more antithetic to what formal semantics aims for and to how it pursues those aims than the views on meaning and language that Wittgenstein expounds in, e.g., Philosophical Investigations, with its insistence on particularity and diversity, and its rejection of explanation and formal modelling. But what about his earlier work, the Tractatus (henceforth )? At first sight, that seems much more congenial, as it develops a conception of language and meaning that is both general and uniform, explanatory and formal. In view of that, the general lack of reference to  is curious. The central claim of the present paper is that, actually, this is an oversight. Perhaps Wittgenstein was no conscious influence on the minds of Montague c.s. at the time, but he did play a major role in establishing the fundamental principles and philosophical assumptions that helped shape formal semantics and make it such a successful enterprise, in linguistics and in philosophy. The actual channels through which this transmission of concepts and ideas has taken place is not what we will be focusing on here. That is another story, and a complicated one, which requires more historical knowledge and skills than we can muster. Rather, we will be content with discussing some systematic

Transcendental Idealism in Wittgenstein'S Tractatus

Wittgenstein’s Reconsideration of the Transcendental Problem

Tractatus, Application and Use

Tension in Einstein's Philosophical Thinking

Wittgenstein's Reconsideration on Transcendental Problem——Also on the Relationship Between Wittgenstein's "phenomenology" and Husserl's Phenomenology

Wittgenstein and the Dualism of the Inner and the Outer

"The Spiritual Eye"

Compatibility and Tensions Between Transcendental Idealism and Common-Sense Realism — Husserl and McDowell

The architecture of meaning: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and formal semantics

"Non-Real Essences" Founded in the Transcendental Purified Phenomenon of Consciousness: Interpretation of Husserl′s Thinking Way from the Logic Investigation to the "Ideas"

“It is not a something , but not a nothing either!”—McDowell on Wittgenstein

Solipsistic and Symbiotic: Intersubjective Idea of Neo-phenomenology

Wittgenstein, Hegel And Cognition

De Tractatus Lezen. En Waarderen

Radical Scepticism, How-Possible Questions and Modest Transcendental Arguments

What's Essence and How Intuitive?——A Rethinking of the Phenomenological Idealism

Fundamental Ontology, Saturated Phenomena and Transcendental Dilemma

The Tantalus’ Torments of Transcendentalism

Reduction and Construction——Interpreting The Idea of Phenomenology

Interpreting Wittgenstein’s “Phenomenology”: A Relevant History from the End of 1960’s to the Early 21th Century

A transcendental view on the continuum: Woodin's conditional platonism