[lit-ideas] Re: EP has left the building (Was: Saying an EP)
- From: Henninge@xxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Henninge)
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:52:15 +0200
Wittgenstein says: 2.0251 "Space, time, and colour..are forms of
objects".
Donal says: Ie. These MERE forms are NOT objects - objects are BEYOND these
mere forms.
I deny that (a) Wittgenstein would accept MERE as an adjective to modify
these forms, (b) that these forms are NOT objects, and consequently (c) that
these forms-which-are-objects are BEYOND these so-called mere forms.
I show that Wittgenstein says that the "objects *are* the fixed form"
(2.023). In other words, I want to prove that Donal is wrong to say that
"forms are not objects" in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. I think Wittgenstein
says that "forms *are* objects," but Donal refuses to allow the argument
that Wittgenstein says both
(a) 2.0251 "Space, time, and colour..are forms of objects."
and
(b) 2.023 "Objects are just what constitute this unalterable form."
I think as long as Donal can uphold his vision of form that is not objects
and of objects that are beyond form we will not get very far in discussing
Wittgenstein. We might be able to have a simplistic discussion of Plato's
ideal forms, but we won't ever get to what makes Wittgenstein interesting
and worth discussing. Wittgenstein's Tractatus was famously misunderstood.
If you've ever tried to discuss his thinking with Donal, you would know why
the Tractatus has been misunderstood. I cannot even say that Wittgenstein's
use of the same word, "form," to talk about space, time and color and
objects indicates that he links form and object without having Donal
(a) fail to "feel the weight of this argument,"
(b) feel that it is "an argument open to easy abuse" and that
(c) "its thrust here" is "specious."
If these three theses can be levied against my "argument" that Wittgenstein
is using the word "form," i.e. the same word twice within the space of a
couple pages, to refer to the same "thing," and therefore to indicate that
Wittgenstein *rather* believes that form is object and object form and NOT
(as Donal suggests) that "forms are not objects" and that "objects are
beyond these . . . forms," I guess I might as well give up.
Sometimes you encounter people who never "feel the weight" of your
arguments. Perhaps Donal can cite something from Wittgenstein that indicates
that what he says is the case, instead of just asking questions and
questioning answers.
>
>
> It is not an accident of language that the plural "forms of
> objects" referring to "space, time, and colour" is the same "form" as in
the
> "objects are 'the unalterable form' (2.023)."
>
> *I am not sure I feel the weight of this argument from
> 'same term can't be just an accident', which seems to me
> an argument open to easy abuse and its thrust here specious.
Richard Henninge
University of Mainz
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
