[lit-ideas] Re: FAO Phil/Here we go again
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:03:59 +0700
This is mere trolling on Donal's part. Donal has yet to provide any
kind of textual analysis of TLP. If Donal is interested in an
accurate reading of TLP, I would encourage him to provide textual
evidence for his argument. If Donal is interested only in trying to
catch me up in some form of contradiction, then the activity is mere
sophistry and really not worth my time. Fortunately, I am almost
finished my Kant paper and waiting for critical comments from Walter
O., so I have a bit of time for Donal.
Donal makes two different claims.
The first is Donal's original summary of my argument, and I quote:
"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"
The second is a later summary, and again I quote:
"So 'elements do not contribute to the sense of the picture'?
It is obvious that the qualification 'only' in the original summary is
significant and that its use makes the two claims quite different. In
the first claim, Donal suggests that I am claiming that the sense is
determined _only_ within the proposition. In the second, the elements
of the proposition merely 'contribute', suggesting that the sense
might include, among other things, the elements of the proposition.
The difference is between a claim that has sense arising solely from
the structure of the proposition, and a claim that has sense arising
from the structure of the proposition _as it represents a picture of a
state of affairs_. Donal completely ignores my comments on the
representational function of the elements of the proposition. Yes,
elements contribute to the sense of the picture in that they represent
a state of affairs that may or may not correspond to things. No, the
sense of a proposition is not determined _only_ by the relations
between elements of a proposition, since the sense of a proposition
lies in its representational function.
Again, if Donal's sole interest lies in comparing the words I used in
a sentence at one time with the words I used in a sentence at another,
I just don't see the value of the exercise. I am flattered by the
attention, but I am more interested in discussing Wittgenstein.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
