[lit-ideas] Re: EP has left the building (Was: Saying an EP)
- From: "Michael Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:43:08 -0500
> The fact that Mike Geary can make light of Donal's thinking here by
> comparing it to Clinton's "It depends on what you mean by 'is'" is
evidence
> enough that one has left EP-land
Yeah, but in fairness to Donal, I was also making light of the entire
debate. The gall of my doing so (having never read a word of Wittgenstein)
doesn't escape me. I have no right to interject my ignorance into the
debate. It's just that it amuses me to consider all the brain power and all
the years of serious scholarship being brought to bear upon this most
elementary (?) issue and no one agrees. Is all philosophy a question of
"How many angels"? I know it's not, but sometimes it seems like it. I wish
I could say more, but I've got to go unclog a sink.
Avicenna McKees
Short-Term Memory Loss Anonymous
Uhh....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henninge" <Henninge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] EP has left the building (Was: Saying an EP)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donal McEvoy" <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 12:55 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Saying an EP
>
>
> > >If Donal wants to suggest
> > > "Blue here" as an elementary proposition, he will encounter no
problems
> > > with
> > > Wittgenstein.
> >
> > Robert Paul suggested 'blue here' as an EP: I did not. Nor do I know
where
> W
> > suggested it.
> >
> > The problem is whether a. blue is simple or complex - if blue can be
> analysed
> > in terms of statements of velocity it might seem it is *not* an EP or
> > elementary name. b. is 'here' an EP - or can the space-time point it
> points
> > to be further broken down in terms of more specific 'heres' [here in my
> room
> > can be broken down in the many points of 'here' in my room].
> >
> > And is there a specifiable end to this breaking down where we arrive an
> some
> > sayable EPs?
> >
> > My hunch is no.
>
> First of all, read the quotes provided by JL from the OED to clear up the
> misconceptions you have about EPs. The "problem" is not "whether . . .
blue
> is simple or complex" or "if blue can be analysed" further in any terms.
The
> "problem" is only whether the EP can be further analyzed logically. It
> cannot contain conjunctions. It cannot contain logical terms. "This spot
is
> blue" contains no conjunctions nor logical terms. It expresses or speaks
of
> a state of affairs. The world should be completely describable by EPs such
> as this. "Robert Paul's cat Gödel (Get You Ten, Bad'll Get You Life) is on
> the mat in front of his desk" is no less of an EP than "This spot is blue"
> referring to a part of Robert Paul's visual field corresponding to a part
of
> that same cat's left eye. As long as no logical contradiction arises in
> these propositions, or better, between these propositions and other
> "would-be" elementary propositions, everything is hunky-dory in EP-land.
>
> 1962 M. CRANSTON tr. Hartnack's Wittgenstein & Mod. Philos. ii. 13 A
> â?~state
> of affairsâ?T is a fact that in itself does not consist of facts... A
state
> of
> affairs is a combination of possible facts. Ibid. 14 If an elementary
> sentence,
> or, better, an elementary proposition is true, then the state of affairs
> which
> is spoken of exists.
>
> [Just a comment on this last statement: Would Wittgenstein have spoken so
> often and so casually of "the state of affairs . . . spoken of" in an
> "elementary proposition" if he thought for a moment that one could not
> "speak" of such a "state of affairs"? I think it's time we take the
mystery
> and magic and aura of unattainability from something that Wittgenstein
> apparently took for granted as unproblematic. He spoke of "unsayability,"
> true, but not *in this regard*. A lot of things are sayable in
Wittgenstein
> and EPs are among the most "sayable" (in Donal's usage--I prefer to say
that
> it's not the EP that's sayable or not, but the state of affairs it
> expresses). "This spot is blue" (I'm talking about the dot between "www"
and
> "andreas" in the last line of this post) is sayable as long as "This spot
is
> green" (I'm talking about the dot between "www" and "andreas" in the last
> line of this post) is not true. Only one of them can be an EP.]
>
> As to Donal's concern about "breaking down" the word "here" into smaller
> "heres" or more microscopic or subjective "heres," that's also not an EP
> problem. The fact that Mike Geary can make light of Donal's thinking here
by
> comparing it to Clinton's "It depends on what you mean by 'is'" is
evidence
> enough that one has left EP-land (or at least that EP has left the
> building).
>
>
> >From the OED
>
> 'atomic'.
>
>
> In modern philosophy: unanalysable, irreducible, ultimate, essential;
also,
> of a sentence: without conjunctions or other connective words.
>
> Cites -- as it applies to 'proposition':
>
>
> 1912 L. WITTGENSTEIN Let. (to Russell) in Notebks. 1914-16 (1961) 120,
>
> I believe that our problems can be traced down to the atomic propositions.
>
> 1918 B. RUSSELL in Monist 523
>
> An atomic proposition is one which does mention actual particulars, not
> merely describe them but actually name them.
>
> 1922 tr. Wittgenstein's Tract. Log.-Phil. 31
>
> An atomic fact is a combination of objects (entities, things).
>
> 1929 WITTGENSTEIN in Knowledge, Exper. & Realism (Aristotelian Soc.
Suppl.,
> Vol. IX) 163
>
> The propositions which represent this ultimate connexion of terms I call,
> after B. Russell, atomic propositions.
>
> 1933 Mind XLII. 38
>
> Similar to the species of geometry, we might have in logic â?~a logic of
> atomic
> propositionsâ?T and â?~a logic of molecular propositionsâ?T.
>
> 1948 B. RUSSELL Human Knowl. II. ix. 145 We give the name â?~atomic
> sentenceâ?T
> to one not containing logical words.
>
> 1956 G. RYLE in Ayer et al. Revol. Philos. 10
>
> The analysis of compound propositions into their simple elements, the
> conjunctionless or â?~atomicâ?T propositions.
>
> Richard Henninge
> University of Mainz
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
