[lit-ideas] Re: The Philosopher's Show
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:49:48 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
> In which case, there may be a difference as to the extension
of the class of things that are shown in TLP and PI.>
Here is one perhaps large difference to begin with: in TLP, according to W,
essentially all that need be shown, philosophically speaking, is shown by what
W says there: end of. End of philosophy trying to say what cannot be said. The
"logic of our language" is set out in a way such that "the truth of the
thoughts communicated here seems to me unassailable and definitive. I am,
therefore, of the opinion that the problems have in essentials been finally
solved." [TLP, Preface] The philosopher's task is, "in essentials", completed
by the work in TLP, except the work of elucidating "the truth" to others [6.53:
"The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can
be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has
nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say
something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to
certain signs in his propositions. This
method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that
we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct
method."]
In PI, the philosopher's task is never ending: to take some philosophical
thought or line of thought and show where it makes sense or does not make sense
given the "logic of our language". The "logic of our language" is not set out
in a way that appears so definitive or unassailable; and certainly it is not
suggested that the "logic of our language", as there understood, means that all
philosophical problems have "been finally solved". What W seems to be
presenting, however, is again a "right method of philosophy" and one that
dissolves philosophical problems by showing how they mistake the proper sense
of "our language". But not by a general theory of the "logic of our language"
but by showing the "logic of our language" through case-by-case examination
that is sensitive to its particularities.
Donal
Salop
Other related posts:
