[lit-ideas] Re: Elementary, Dr. Watson

  • From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:19:42 -0700

Donal wrote.

'It does not, for W, affect this theory that we can never
provide examples of, or "know" examples of, these "atomic
facts" or "elements".'

I misread 'this' for 'his.' That's why I said Wittgenstein had no such theory!

I thank Donal for trying to make sense of what I wrote. He says though that he suspects Wittgenstein


really think this through properly and once thought through it becomes apparent 
that such examples cannot be given.

I'm not so sure about that. What would 'thinking it through' amount to? I take his reply to Malcolm as saying not that such examples 'cannot be given' but that the whole theory in which they play a role was absurd.

Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: