[lit-ideas] Re: On linguistic and genetic uncertainty
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 22:16:37 +0100 (BST)
(According to the most cogent reading of the Tractatus) every proposition in
the Tractatus is an example of statements, or pseudo-statements if you will,
that show the truth but say nothing with sense (as only the propositions of the
natural sciences say anything with sense, and the propositions of the Tractatus
are not propositions of the natural sciences).
In Investigations the various remarks about how "sense" is taught [how we learn
names, how we learn the sequence of natural numbers, how we learn the sense of
"Take n and continue to add 2" etc.] are part of showing how "sense" is shown -
rather than said.
As to how we would further explicate the distinction, I think we must take
seriously that the say/shown distinction is a distinction that can at best be
shown - we cannot capture it in language so that we reach a point where we may
conclude "There we have said, in a way that captures it in language,what
constitutes the distinction between saying and showing." Wittgenstein did not
believes such a point could ever be reached. In both the earlier and later
philosophy, his view is that the saying/showing distinction may only be shown.
Dnl
Apologies if this belongs in another thread
Ldn
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 19:41, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i.e yourself, sorry I was being distracted. Will there be examples of
statements that "show but do not say" ? Please note that the request is
somewhat more specific that asking for examples of say/show distinction. (Which
I understand as well as the guy next door.)
O.K.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was thinking more of some persons whom I met when I was teaching in China,
but if you recognized itself there... I guess it is all right. :)
>
>
>O:K.
>
>
>
>On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>>the Scotch were subsumed under the Irish ? Judging by stubbornness, they
>>>appear to be fairly similar.>
>>
>>
>>What's stubborn about not budging an inch when you're in the right?
>>(Stubbornness is better exemplified by continuing to ask for clarification of
>>W's say/show distinction when in the wrong threads.)
>>
>>
>>Donal
>>Scotch-Irish (probably)
>>
>>Ldn
>>
>>On Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 12:29, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>><dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 5/6/2014 10:03:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>>I am not too sure what the original complaint was, that the Scotch were
>>subsumed under the Irish?
>>
>>The original wording by Helm went:
>>
>>"In the
Ancestry.com definitions, one can find British (which I find in my
>>genealogic tree) under Western Europe and Scottish (also in my genealogic
>>tree) under Irish. And that ambiguity can be found in recent studies such
>>as Oppenheimer’s; so perhaps the Ancestry people are updating results as new
>>arguments are advanced. There is no consensus on the reasons for the
>>difference between the Scots and the Irish, for example, or whether they
>>originally came from central Europe as many have believed or through Southern
>>
>>France and Spain as Oppenheimer and later scholars now believe."
>>
>>My quotations were from Oppenheimer's link in the Oppenheimer entry in
>>Wikipedia: a forum for the discussion of
what I think is entitled the 'myth'
>>of British ancestry. Anyhow, Helm's wording are interesting, and they
>>reminded me of a glorious, to my mind, passage in a 'comical history of
>>England'
>>that I often quote, '1066 and all that' where things that happened are
>>distinguished as being "a good thing" or a "bad thing" in terms of their
>>consequences. Their authors are "MA (Oxon) (failed)" and they write:
>>
>>A section that does not quite refer to the Scots and Picts at all,
>>entitled,
>>
>>"Culture among the Ancient Britons",
>>
>>relates to Oppenheimer's argument. Sellar and Yeatman write:
>>
>>"The Ancient Britons were by no means
savages
>>before the Conquest, and had already made great
>>strides in civilization, e.g. they buried each other in
>>long round wheelbarrows (agriculture) and burnt
>>each other alive (religion) under the guidance
>>of even older Britons called Druids or
>>Eisteddfods, who worshipped the Middletoe
>>in the famous Druidical churchyard at Stoke Penge."
>>
>>There is an ERRATUM, "For Middletoe read Mistletoe."
>>
>>---- The Scots/Picts passage goes after the mention of the end of the
>>"Provincia Romana" and "Roman occupation" (nicely illustrated by a Roman
>>immersed in a bath, and thus punning on the 'alleged' ambiguity of 'occupy'
>>--
>>"they did little but have
baths, these Romans -- that was what they occupied
>>their time in" -- being the implicature)
>>
>>Sellar and Yeatman write:
>>
>>"The withdrawal of the Roman legions to take part in Gibbon's Decline and
>>Fall of the Roman Empire (due to a clamour among the Romans for pompous
>>amusements such as bread and circumstances) left Britain defenceless and
>>subjected Europe to that long succession of Waves of which History is chiefly
>>
>>composed."
>>
>>"While the Roman Empire was overrun by waves not only of Ostrogoths,
>>Vizigoths, and even Goths, but also of Vandals (who destroyed works of art)
>>and
>>Huns (who destroyed everything and everybody, including Goths,
Ostrogoths,
>>Vizigoths, and even Vandals), Britain was attacked by waves of Picts (and,
>>of course, Scots) who had recently learnt how to climb the wall, and of
>>Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who, landing at Thanet, soon overran the country
>>with
>>fire (and, of course, the sword)."
>>
>>And here is their
>>
>>"Important Note"
>>
>>"The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time
>>inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while
>>the
>>Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa.
>>It
>>is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa)."
>>
>>The history is intended as parodical so it may do to revise the
>>implicatures alla Grice:
>>
>>i. The Socts were originally Irish.
>>
>>ii. The Scots were originally Irish but were by NOW Scotch.
>>
>>iii. The Scots had become Scotch.
>>
>>iv. The Scots (or Scotch), while originally Irish, were no longer so.
>>(Oppenheimer would disagree: Once Irish, all ways Irish).
>>
>>v. The Scots were inhabiting Ireland.
>>
>>Implicature:
>>
>>vi. No wonder they were originally Irish.
>>
>>v. Irish is whoever inhabits Ireland. (analytic).
>>
>>vi. The Scots
had driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland.
>>
>>Entailment:
>>
>>vii. The Irish were Picts.
>>
>>. Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts
>>(originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It
>>is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa)."
>>
>>viii. The Pics (originally Socts) were now Irish.
>>
>>Here there is the symmetry:
>>
>>ix. The Scots were originally Irish; the Picts were originally Scots.
>>
>>By transitivity:
>>
>>x. The Picts were originally Irish.
>>
>>Here
there is a contradictory implicature (or entailment), big enough to be
>>present in a serious student of the passage:
>>
>>xi. If the Picts were originally Irish, how come they were NOW Irish.
>>Implicature: they ALL WAYS were!
>>
>>xii. "Living in brackets" possibly triggers the wrong implicature.
>>
>>xiii. The Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and
>>vice versa.
>>
>>The 'implicature' of entailment of 'and vice versa' here seems odd to
>>formulate explicitly:
>>
>>xiv. The Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and
>>vice versa. To wit: the Irish (living in brackets) were now Picts
>>(originally Scots).
>>
>>No wonder Oppenheimer's book brought further controversy to an already
>>controversial topic!
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Speranza
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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:
