[lit-ideas] 50

From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:05:05 +0000
The 50 years edition of PU has corrected many on the basis of more interesting 
and acute work by scholarly attention

Isbn 0631231277


Likewise the suhrkamp

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Donal McEvoy
Sent: 28 March 2015 14:47
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana


Robert wrote:


>An English translation of the Investigations (with the translated German text 
>on facing pages),
can be found at>


There is no facing German text and the English text has defects, including some 
that render the text almost unintelligible in parts, including some quite 
crucial parts e.g.



>190. It may now be said: "The way the formula is meant determines
which steps are to be taken". What is the criterion for the way the
formula is meant? It is, for example, the kind of way we always use it,
the way we are taught to use it.
We say, for instance, to someone who uses a sign unknown to us:
"If by 'xU' you mean x2, then you get this value for j, if you mean
2X, that one."—Now ask yourself: how does one mean the one thing or
the other by"x!2"?
That will be how meaning it can determine the steps in advance.>

Dnl
L"x!2"dn




On Friday, 27 March 2015, 21:00, Robert Paul 
<rpaul@xxxxxxxx<mailto:rpaul@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:

A comment of Omar's which apparently didn't make it through the first time 
recurs in a later post;
I copy it here in case it should get lost again.

'Yeah, if philosophy is a language game as the Wittgensteins tell us, where do 
people win or lose in it ? One might possibly think that they lose when their 
arguments are refuted, but one hardly hears of any significant philosopher 
being refuted on a matter of any importance. Possibly the Wittgensteins might 
want to consult game theory to tell us what kind of game it is that goes on 
forever without anyone visibly winning or losing.'

I wonder just where Wittgenstein says this, or even hints at it. This 
'interpretation' of Wittgenstein's views—his views somewhere—could scarcely be 
more misleading: it is simply wrong. Reading the Philosophical Investigations, 
might be a first step in showing why it is.

An English translation of the Investigations (with the translated German text 
on facing pages),
can be found at

http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf

This is the third English edition, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. It differs 
from the first English edition, of 1953, only insofar as Anscombe has corrected 
some of that edition's grammar and spelling.

Robert Paul
Reed (formerly Mutton) College

——————————————
[lit-ideas] 50

Other related posts:
