[lit-ideas] Re: EP has left the building (Was: Saying an EP)
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:19:52 +0100 (BST)
--- Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >
> It is not that pictorial elements need correspond to particles
> in the sense of physics but rather whether they need to correspond with
> objects of a kind that cannot be analysed further into _logically_ smaller
> elements - in order that the proposition be regarded as an EP rather than a
> non-EP.
Wittgenstein stipulates that "Objects are simple". What does this mean if not
that nothing can be an "object" that is a complex or composite that can be
broken down into logically smaller elements?
Hope to get back with some more quotations, though my TLP is the P&M
translation and without the original German, so it may be any quotations used
for argument will raise the kind of important questions as to the rightness
of translation that Richard has broached.
Donal
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.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:
