[lit-ideas] Le Pesanteur et la Grâce
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:13:39 EDT
In a message dated 8/6/2004 10:38:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Okay, I made up my own version as to what number one must mean, so I can
feel like I'm making progress, and now I'm on to number two.
"The demonstrable correlation of opposites is an image of the
transcendental
correlation of contradictories."
Someone help me here or I won't make it to three.
---- P. F. Strawson once said that what can be said nonsensically in one
language can be said nonsensically in another (cited by Mundle, Critique of
Linguistic Philosophy). This may be a case in point? The original: "La
correlation demonstrable des opposites est an image de la correlation
trascendentale
des contradictories." --- tr. into English by Arthur Wills. What Weil may have
in mind is Aristotle's Square of Opposition? (Affirmo, Nego):
A E
I O
Consider 'red', 'blue', and 'non-blue'. If x is blue, then x is not red. If
x is blue, then x is not non-blue. That x is not blue if x is red is a
_demonstrable_ correlation (it can be demonstrated). What this is an 'image'
of is
the _trascendental_ (and thus non-demonstrable by 'deductive' logic)
correlation of 'blue' and 'non-blue'. One minor problem is that for Kant (and
Kantians) trascendental correlations are just as demonstrable as your c
ommon-or-garden 'demonstrable' correlation. In fact, Kant speaks of the
'trascendental
deduction'. Perhaps he should mean 'ab-duction', though. Clear? :-)
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
