[lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Le Pesanteur et la Grâce
- From: "Erin Holder" <erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:30:07 -0400
What I mean, of course, is that I was totally thinking the same thing.
Yeah. All along. All along I was thinking "What Weil must have in mind is
Aristotle's Square of Opposition". Clearly. It's the
Square-of-Opposition-thing. Good job JL. High five. We're on the same
page. Go team.
Erin
TO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erin Holder" <erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas] Le Pesanteur et la Grâce
> Oh. Sure. Crystal. :)
>
>
> Erin
> TO
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:13 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Le Pesanteur et la Grâce
>
>
> >
> > In a message dated 8/6/2004 10:38:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > Okay, I made up my own version as to what number one must mean, so I
can
> > feel like I'm making progress, and now I'm on to number two.
> > "The demonstrable correlation of opposites is an image of the
> > transcendental
> > correlation of contradictories."
> > Someone help me here or I won't make it to three.
> > ---- P. F. Strawson once said that what can be said nonsensically in one
> > language can be said nonsensically in another (cited by Mundle, Critique
> of
> > Linguistic Philosophy). This may be a case in point? The original: "La
> > correlation demonstrable des opposites est an image de la correlation
> trascendentale
> > des contradictories." --- tr. into English by Arthur Wills. What Weil
may
> have
> > in mind is Aristotle's Square of Opposition? (Affirmo, Nego):
> >
> > A E
> >
> > I O
> >
> > Consider 'red', 'blue', and 'non-blue'. If x is blue, then x is not red.
> If
> > x is blue, then x is not non-blue. That x is not blue if x is red is a
> > _demonstrable_ correlation (it can be demonstrated). What this is an
> 'image' of is
> > the _trascendental_ (and thus non-demonstrable by 'deductive' logic)
> > correlation of 'blue' and 'non-blue'. One minor problem is that for Kant
> (and
> > Kantians) trascendental correlations are just as demonstrable as your c
> > ommon-or-garden 'demonstrable' correlation. In fact, Kant speaks of the
> 'trascendental
> > deduction'. Perhaps he should mean 'ab-duction', though. Clear? :-)
> > Cheers,
> >
> > JL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
