[lit-ideas] Re: FAO Phil/Here we go again
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:22:22 +0000 (GMT)
The following are from two posts of mine from 17th and 18th Feb. that
themselves refer to previous posts and which quote from Phil. Clearly I am less
immersed in work than Phil is at the moment and so offer these to draw
attention to the specifics that underlie my more recent remarks (or as Phil
prefers to see them "trollings").
The posts present a prima facie case that
">Phil Enns
> claimed [affair], W's TLP
> offers the view that the sense of a proposition is
> determined only by
> the relations between the elements of the proposition"
though, as seen below, Phil appeared to subsequently deny he claimed any such
thing.
Hey, the prima facie case is actually pretty clear-cut (evasive manoeuvres
aside), at least imo. In particular how can Phil talk his way out of clearly
stating that "the elements do not contribute to the sense of the picture"?
These posts were btw in a thread titled:-
Re: TLP1: Elements and their relations in giving the sense of 'p'
>And so, perhaps inevitably, we turn from Wittgn. exegesis to Ennsian...
--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: TLP1: Elements and their relations in giving the
> sense of 'p'
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tuesday, 17 February, 2009, 12:12 AM
> Robert Paul quotes:
>
> "'... A key dispute is whether, as Phil Enns
> claimed [affair], W's TLP
> offers the view that the sense of a proposition is
> determined only by
> the relations between the elements of the proposition; or
> whether, as
> I maintain(ed), the sense of 'p' also depends on
> the character or
> content of the elements.'"
>
> and then comments:
>
> "If this is what Phil claimed, then he was mistaken in
> claiming it.
> The sense of a proposition is, roughly, what would be the
> case if it
> were true. (False sentence have a sense; their falsity
> could not be
> determined otherwise.)"
>
>
> I did not make the claim that is ascribed to me above.
>
> For example, on 20 December, I wrote:
>
> "For Wittgenstein in the TLP, the sense of a picture
> lies in the
> states of affairs, that is the relations between things,
> that are
> represented."
>
> I stand by what I wrote earlier and am willing to defend
> what I, in fact, wrote.
First, as my post pointed out, the claim that sense lies in "the relations
between things" is ambiguous as it could mean (a) relations alone determine
sense, as I suggested Phil suggested, or (b) it is the "ting" _and_ how they
are related that determines sense.
Second, the day before the post Phil quotes that he is willing to stand by, he
wrote the following that seems to me fairly conclusive in showing his position
is that at (a):-
"Donal McEvoy wrote:
"the picture is constituted by the objects/elements within it and by
their relations. If 'p' is "The cat is on the mat", we change the
sense of 'p' if we change the 'relation' of the objects/elements from
'on' to 'under'; but we also change the sense of 'p' if we change the
objects/elements to 'mouse' and 'running-wheel'."
For Wittgenstein in the TLP, the sense of the picture comes from the
relations between elements. The elements are the means for fixing the
picture against reality, but the elements do not contribute to the
sense of the picture. The elements serve the purpose of mapping the
picture on to reality.
One might think here of a dot on a map. The dot may represent a city,
but the sense of the map comes from the relation of this dot to other
similar dots and lines. The dot, by itself, is empty of sense.
Further, the dot may not represent a real city so that the map is
imaginary. In this case, the map still has sense though it is false."
So "elements do not contribute to the sense of the picture"? Seems pretty clear
what this means. Unless of course it is just very badly expressed.
Donal
--- On Wed, 18/2/09, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: TLP1: Elements and their relations in giving the
> sense of 'p'
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009, 10:03 AM
>
> Phil Enns once wrote:-
> >> For Wittgenstein in the TLP, the sense of the
> picture comes
> > from the
> > relations between elements. The elements are the
> means for
> > fixing the
> > picture against reality, but the elements do not
> contribute
> > to the
> >> sense of the picture. >
>
> Donal commented yesterday:-
> > So "elements do not contribute to the sense of the
> > picture"? Seems pretty clear what this means. Unless
> of
> > course it is just very badly expressed.
>
> But is this comment fair? Does Phil really mean elements
> contribute _nothing_ to the sense of 'p'? Or does Phil mean
> only, as per the dot on a map when considered just as a dot
> in isolation, that in isolation the elements have no sense
> but only gain propositional sense when put into determinate
> "relations" with other elements?
>
> Phil in a previous post:-
>
> "Donal McEvoy wrote:
>
> "you had failed to provide a quotation in the text where W
> explicitly
> states that "'elements' contribute nothing to the 'sense'of
> a picture"
>
> As far as I know, this quote does not appear anywhere in
> the TLP. I
> never claimed Wittgenstein wrote these particular
> words. I did
> however claim that this reflects an argument in the TLP,
> and on
> several occasions gave arguments in support of my
> claim. I am afraid
> the best I can do is offer interpretations supported by
> arguments."
>
> This appears to mean that, for Phil, "an argument in the
> TLP" "reflects" the "claim" that "'elements' contribute
> nothing to the 'sense' of a picture" - and this surely means
> that, for Phil, the TLP takes the position that elements
> never play any role in the sense of a 'p'.
>
> If Phil stands by this and is ready to defend it, then it
> would seem neither Robert Paul nor I have any need to
> apologize for mis-interpreting Phil and that Phil's view
> that he has been misinterpreted has just led to everyone's
> time being wasted either apologising or re-checking his
> posts.
>
> Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
