Wittgensteinian quietism comes in distinct varieties that share a common stance: philosophical theses, including metaphysical theses about the structural ground of reality, are not properly to be argued for or against but to be diagnosed. The varieties differ in what diagnosis amounts to.

The Tractarian Wittgenstein -(Wittgenstein, Ludwig, (1921) 1961), and the resolute reading developed by (Diamond, Cora, 1991) and (Conant, James, 2002) on which the *Tractatus*'s philosophical sentences are themselves nonsense to be climbed and discarded, holds that metaphysical sentences fail to express propositions. They are not false; they lack truth-conditions. The proper response is silence: to climb the ladder of philosophical analysis and then throw it away.

The later, *Investigations*-derived varieties operate differently. Hacker with Baker, -(Baker, G. P., and P. M. S. Hacker, 1980); -(Baker, G. P., and P. M. S. Hacker, 1985); Hacker, -(Hacker, P. M. S., 2001) defends the orthodox Wittgensteinian view that metaphysical claims are grammatical confusions: when we ask whether time is real, we have misread the grammar of *real* and projected an answerable question where none lives. (McDowell, John, 1994) develops a therapeutic quietism in epistemology and philosophy of mind: philosophy's task is not to construct theories but to dissolve the appearance of problems by clarifying the conceptual framework that generated them. (Cavell, Stanley, 1979) goes further: skepticism cannot be refuted by argument but only acknowledged, and the criteria for our concepts come from forms of life rather than from any standpoint outside them. On all three readings, a sustained metaphysical argument like the present one is not engaging a question the quietist takes to be live; it is exhibiting a confusion the quietist takes its task to clarify.

The challenge is sharper than ordinary skepticism. The quietist does not argue that the present argument is wrong. The quietist argues that it is not the kind of thing that can be wrong, because it is not the kind of thing that can be right.

The reply has three parts, addressing the varieties in turn.

*First.* The Tractarian framework distinguishes saying from showing: certain features of the world cannot be stated within language but can be exhibited by what language does. Time, Space, and Substance, on the present argument, are precisely such features. Every act of language exhibits them, 'exhibits' here in the sense fixed by the ∅-fork at [§2.7](<2.7 Nothing to Consider.md>): any act that is not ∅ instantiates the structural conditions, their joint instantiation being what counts as there being an act at all. The argument is not the proposition *T, S, and Φ are necessary*; the argument is the structural exhibition of what utterance, distinction, and persistence require. A Tractarian who grants showing has granted what the argument needs; the resolute reader, who discards showing along with the rest of the ladder, is met not here but by the performative point below, since the climbing and discarding are themselves enacted.

*Second.* The Hacker–Baker line says metaphysical questions are misuses of language; McDowell says they are appearances generated by a conceptual framework whose clarification dissolves them. Both readings require a coherent distinction between misuse and use, or between confused appearance and clarified perception. Drawing the distinction is itself an activity. It occurs over time, differentiates one form of words from another, and persists through the diagnostician. The diagnostic activity exhibits T, S, and Φ no less than any first-order metaphysical claim does. The therapy does not undo what makes the therapy possible.

*Third.* Cavell's deepest move is that philosophical claims rest on criteria that come from forms of life, and that a form of life is not a thesis but a way of being-in-language. The present argument does not contest this. It identifies what any form of life (any way of using criteria, any practice of acknowledgment) requires. The structural conditions are not criteria offered from a standpoint outside the form of life. They are what occupying any form of life involves. Cavell's acknowledgment of skepticism is itself a sustained activity; the activity has the structure the argument identifies; the acknowledgment does not float free of what makes acknowledgment possible.

*The grammatical reading, owned.* The quietist presses one step further: if the only thing that would count against 'every act exhibits T, S, and Φ' is ∅ (the absence of any act at all) then the claim has no contrastive use among actual cases, and a claim with no contrastive use is grammatical rather than substantive. The response is not to resist this but to accept it, on one condition. The claim is indeed constitutive: it does not report a feature some acts have and others lack; it states what *counts* as there being an act at all. But this concedes nothing to quietism, whose charge is that metaphysical claims are *confusions*, pseudo-questions to be dissolved. A constitutive truth whose only alternative is ∅ is the opposite of a confusion. The grammar is not idle. It marks the one boundary that does not fall between cases but between there being cases and there being nothing at all: the line between something and ∅. To call that “merely grammatical” is to mistake the floor of the world for a turn of phrase. The claim earns a constitutive register precisely because its proposed countercase is absolute structural absence rather than another ordinary act. Still, the exhibition of the roles in actual speech or diagnosis establishes an act-side result. The cross-world □(T∧S∧Φ) conclusion depends on the modal and role-to-type arguments developed elsewhere; quietist performance alone does not supply it.

*What converges.* The dialectical point extends across all the varieties considered here. Where refusing to articulate an objection is itself a performed act of declination, it involves persistence, distinction, and an ordered episode. Mere absence of speech, however, is not automatically such an act and does not by itself instantiate the full triad. The performative point applies to enacted quietism, not to silence considered simply as no tokened response. Quietism, enacted, is the position that exhibits structure most economically.


---

← [4.1.8 Metaontological Deflationism](<4.1.8 Metaontological Deflationism.md>) | [4.1.10 The Source of Possibility](<4.1.10 The Source of Possibility.md>) →
