[lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein's Show
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:49:15 -0700
Wittgenstein nowhere says that there are no 'logical objects,'
whatever that may mean. (What is a logical object, such that
'philosophers' have no need of them?)
What he says, at 4.0312 is
The possibility of propositions is based on the principle that objects
have signs as their representatives.
My fundamental idea is that the 'logical constants' are not
representatives; that there can be no representatives of the
_logic_ of facts.
Robert Paul
> Most philosophers would agree that there is no need of 'logical objects'.
> But Witters's way to prove a common place (who does think that there are
> logical objects? Most logicians are CONSTRUCTIVISTS and cannot help
being so)
> seems too convoluted to be true or valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
