Abstract

In his response, D. Maslov (1) presents a sketch of a comparative analysis of the notion of ‘will’ in Wittgenstein and Hegel as a response to the initial article by K. Rodin. Despite apparent (but in some ways only seeming) differences, both philosophers show similar anti-metaphysical attitude in their respective analysis. Both regard will not as a metaphysical entity, but in its concrete expression in actions and intentions and conclude that acts of will and intentions can be understood by other people. (2) On this ground and the argument of universality of language, we argue, against K. Rodin, against anti-universalist and contextualist readings of Wittgenstein’s texts.