In a message dated 3/29/2004 6:23:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
torgfje2@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
to this semi-
philosophical mind the following utterance appears to be tautologous:
> Wittgenstein: "that of which we cannot speak, of that we should remain
> silent"
----
I agree with Torgeir Fjeld that the utterance above -- uttered by
Wittgenstein -- is a TAUTOLOGY. Donal McEvoy's attempt to 'detautologise' it by
changing
the 'should' for the 'ought' does not seem to save it, though. It amounts to:
That of which we can NOT speak, we can NOT speak.
Mind: some philosophers' claim to fame rest precisely on tautologies like
that. My favourite is J. Cook Wilson's tautology, as recalled by his student,
H.
P. Grice -- uttered in all earnestness"
What we know, we know.
(Grice, 'Reply to Richards', ed. Grandy/Warner, Clarendon).
One problem with Witters' tautology is idiomatic, in the sense that the
version above is UNGRAMMATICAL and clumsy -- in English, if not in German. In
German it is very common to use periphrastic things like 'Of that which we...',
'of
that we...', with 'that' as a quasi-demonstrative. A more idiomatic English
version would be even sillier though:
What we cannot SAY, we cannot SAY.
-- perhaps? (Put the blame on the translators, D. F. Pears, McGuinness, and
Ogden).
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html