--- On Fri, 17/4/09, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Elementary, Dr. Watson > To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Friday, 17 April, 2009, 8:48 PM > Donal writes > > 'It does not, for W, affect this theory that we can never > provide examples of, or "know" examples of, these "atomic > facts" or "elements".' Perhaps I should I said "whether or not we can never". I was not claiming he said we can never provide examples or know - simply that whether we can or not does not, for W, affect the unassailable truth of his theory which is, after all, a theory in philosophical logic rather than epistemology. > He had no such theory. He does not himself describe the > logically simple objects of the Tractatus, or give an > example of any. This is not because he thought that one > could not do it, but because he seems to have believed that > having shown the necesity of their existence, he'd done the > important work. However, the fact that no examples were given did perhaps later become important to W. > He nowhere says that we can never (that it would be > logically impossible to?) describe or give examples of the > objects. I never said he did. But I suspect he didn't really think this through properly and once thought through it becomes apparent that such examples cannot be given. Donal ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html