[C] [Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein and Theories
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:50:40 -0800 (PST)
... imagine a possible language that used the word "thesis" exactly as ours
does, with one exception. There is a special kind of thesis called an
end-thesis. End-theses are those put forth to end the use of theses. Whenever
someone proposed a thesis, they would indicate whether it was of such a kind to
indicate that no other thesis could then be advanced by anyone else, ever. If
it was not such a thing, it was simply a "thesis." The End-Thesis is thought to
be "the final solution." Then one day a philosopher comes along and says: "I
have found the End-Thesis: the business of presenting theses is wrong
...[because]." It would not be a contradiction in such a language game.
The same is true of prophets. Imagine a set of prophets who come throughout the
ages to state the law of God. Then, imagine the last prophet coming to end the
activity. He is called in such language the end-prophet, because his charge is
to end the business of using prophets to state the law. Let's imagine he did
this because God no longer needed this vehicle as humanity reached a new epoch,
sort of in the way that children receive different behaviors from their parents
as they mature. And so the End-Prophet gave the word, "don't listen to
prophets," and the matter was understood not as a contradiction. In fact, if
one had objected to the End-Prophet and said, "but you are a prophet, so by the
terms of your own premise I must not listen to you." The answer in this
imaginary language would simply be: "No, I am not a prophet; I am
the End-Prophet."
In neither of these cases is the matter regarded as a "contradiction." In fact,
one would have to say this about such a word. The word "contradiction" is local
to systems of logic and should never be cited outside of those systems.
Instead, the word "confusion" should be used. Something that is not a confusion
could never be a "contradiction" -- or if it was, it wouldn't be material (in
which case it would be a completely different sense of "contradiction").
Regards.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
