[lit-ideas] Re: The essence of Wittgenstein ('nuff said about the unsayable)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donal McEvoy" <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:28 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The essence of Wittgenstein ('nuff said about the
unsayable)


> --- Richard Henninge <Henninge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The cross-purposes at
> which Donal McEvoy and Robert Paul are having at one
> > another is a real headache inducer.
> >
> > My judgment call on this one is that McEvoy is way out of line.
>
> You are not the first to come to this judgment.
>
* Is that "not the first to come to this judgment [McEvoy way out of line]
in general" or "on this one," for if the latter my judgment along these
lines preceded Robert Paul's?

> > Piece of Evidence the First:
> >
> > RPaul says:
> >
> > > > Nevertheless, 'my
> > > > propositions'
> > > > refers to propositions such as e.g. 6.432 'How things are in the
world
> > is a
> > > > matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God does not
reveal
> > > > himself
> > > > in the world.' This is, strictly speaking, nonsensical, for it is
NOT a
> > > > proposition whose elements CAN BE MATCHED with elements of the
world.
> >
> > DMcEvoy retorts in the form of a correction in passing:
> >
> > > I assume you mean "cannot be matched".
>
> Did RP capitalise or is this your judgment call again?

* The capitalization is mine and is appropriate. It is for the person who
"misread in haste." I have made the letters bigger so that in his haste he
does not again misread RP's words. But I ask: "In what way is that a
"judgment call" on my part?"

>
> The fact is I misread in haste: I missed the vital "NOT". Hence your
> speculations below are mistaken..

* Let me say a word about DMcEvoy and "hence." Y voilà ci-dessous les mots
étourdissants de M. McEvoy, uh, here below you will find the striking
discussion by Mr. McEvoy of Robert Paul's clarification of "saying P does
not entail Q" = "saying P does not entail Q."

>
> *I wrote: The propositions which 'can be said,' viz., 'the propositions of
> natural science,' and the 'factual' propositions of ordinary language ...
> are
> neither dispensable nor nonsensical, and it does not follow that because
> 'my
> propositions' in the foregoing sense are ...unsayable, that atomic
> propositions,
> the ultimate residue of the 'analysis' of propositions are unsayable: 'The
> simplest kind of proposition, an elementary proposition, asserts the
> existence
> of a state of affairs.' [4.21]
>
> Donal replies: It does not necessarily follow, but nor does it necessarily
> follow that it is not the case.

*This was the original Donal reply. I discern a pattern of response in
Donal, that's all. In learned discourse (forgive the pompous title, but call
it what you will, it is something like that to which we aspire, n'est-ce
pas?) one (not to be too preachy here) must first assume (Donal's word--but
he seems not to share this dictum of first assumption) that one's
interlocutor knows what he or she is saying and has said it appropriately.
It is a bad sign when the response begins with an incorrect correction of a
sentence in the text to which it is responding. "Hastily read" is not
enough. "I must change my ways--It must be me (i.e. my mistake)--Let me look
at that again to avoid being myself in error from now on," would be nice.

*And then this with the Ps and Qs. Robert Paul had just gone to great
lengths (Ask yourself why?) to explain that just because some sorts of
propositions are unsayable it does not follow that another sort of
proposition is unsayable. In other words, just because P is the case does
not logically commit Q to being the case. Robert Paul only brings this up
because Donal has apparently taken just this line of thought, or logic. But
does Donal look back at his thinking to determine what it was that has led
Robert to this explanation? No! Why bother. "Augen zu und durch," one says
in German to such a response. "And the Devil take the hindmost," is similar
in English. "Close your eyes and go for it, press forward, don't look back,
never admit substantive error, bluff...." What does Donal say to Robert's
plea for help (lost!)?

> *To say that P does not entail Q _is_ to say that P doesn't entail Q. so,
I
> am
> lost here.

Lost? To say that P does not (necessarily) entail Q is not to say
(necessarily) that Q is not the case.

*Clear enough? Q is not the case because of P, but that doesn't mean that Q
is not the case! Robert says, "Careful, Donal, P hence Q is not an
acceptable conclusion," and Donal answers "But maybe Q! (forget P)."

*Check your logic (and not at the door).

Donal
Lost in London


Richard Henninge
University of Mainz




------------------------------------------------------------------
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: