[lit-ideas] Re: Elementary, Dr. Watson
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:42:51 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Fri, 17/4/09, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think Witters was fixated with _atoms_,
> not elements. But I hope there
> is a difference.
My (current) guess is this: W's theory in the TLP is a form of logical atomism
where language can attach to reality because reality is ultimately made up of
"indivisible" "atomic facts" (and their relations) and propositions ultimately
(i.e. under analysis) are made up of "indivisible" "elements" (and their
relations). The "elements" and "atomic facts" can correspond in a direct
one-to-one way.
It does not, for W, affect this theory that we can never provide examples of,
or "know" examples of, these "atomic facts" or "elements".
Of course, I am inclined to put a spanner in these logical works by asking 'Why
can't there be sub-atomic logical facts?'
Donal
Salop
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
