[lit-ideas] Re: Philosophical Investigations online - amplification re PI
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:20:42 +0100 (BST)
Unfortunately, time permits only a brief response to Phil for now, on what I
take to perhaps the key point:-
From: Phil Enns phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx
>The issue is not the rules, which can be clearly articulated,
but rather their use.>
Phil puzzles me by earlier asking for clarity where I have been very clear and
indeed have used italics to identify a key tenet that provides a fundamental
continuity between TLP and PI: the sense of 'what is said' is never said in
'what is said etc.
Now this tenet means that we can perhaps have rules that seem "clearly
articulated" or whose sense is clear. But, and it is a fundamental but for W,
their sense is not said in 'what is said' but can only be shown. So all the
apparent clear articulation or expression of "rules" is beside the point and
philosophically deceiving if we think 'what is said' contains the sense of the
"rules".
We might argue out a case to see W's POV here: take the rule 'for every number
add 2 and then for that number add two' and then ask how "what is said"
determines its sense?
Other related posts:
