Thank you for the reminder. Two points, my (3rd ed) PI gives for 107
107. The more narrowly we examine actual language, the sharper becomes the
conflict between it and our requirement. (For the crystalline purity of logic
was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement.) The
conflict becomes intolerable; the requirement is now in danger of becoming
empty.—We have got on to slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a
certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are
unable to walk
Hence I am at a loss at what the textual basis is this on.
Perhaps WITH A A MORE INTERESTING QUESTION, WHAT IS A GRAMMATICAL FICTION? IS
Bloom in Joyce a grammatical fiction? Or what exactly is the fiction of
behaviorism?
Best to r
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: 05 August 2015 05:10
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] A Day At The Beach
JL, caught up in an exaltation of distinctions, writes
"This would irritate Witters, who as a behaviourist, was always asking for
'manifestations', but he would focus on the manifested behaviour of your
friend, not God. On the other hand, Saint-Exupery said what was essential
is 'invisible to the eyes'. His editor found 'to the eyes' otiose but let it
be."
***
Wittgenstein himself, in the Investigations, answers an unnamed interlocutor,
who says (§107), 'Aren't you nevertheless a behaviourist in disguise? Aren't
you nevertheless basically saying that everything except human behaviour is a
fiction?' —LW: 'If I speak of a fiction here, then it is of a grammatical
fiction.'
—————————————
Robert Paul
