[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 17:14:18 +0100
I apologize for the last night's snap; Robert's post got in at a time when
I tend to be under influence. I have the PI in my files but I have never
made it very far in it. Wittgenstein just doesn't speak to me.
O.K.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> >An English translation of the Investigations (with the translated German
> text on facing pages),
> can be found at>
>
> There is no facing German text and the English text has defects, including
> some that render the text almost unintelligible in parts, including some
> quite crucial parts e.g.
>
>
> >190. It may now be said: "The way the formula is meant determines
> which steps are to be taken". What is the criterion for the way the
> formula is meant? It is, for example, the kind of way we always use it,
> the way we are taught to use it.
> We say, for instance, to someone who uses a sign unknown to us:
> "If by 'xU' you mean x2, then you get this value for j, if you mean
> 2X, that one."—Now ask yourself: how does one mean the one thing or
> the other by"x!2"?
> *That* will be how meaning it can determine the steps in advance.>
>
> Dnl
> L"x!2"dn
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, 27 March 2015, 21:00, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> A comment of Omar's which apparently didn't make it through the first time
> recurs in a later post;
> I copy it here in case it should get lost again.
>
> 'Yeah, if philosophy is a language game as the Wittgensteins tell us,
> where do people win or lose in it ? One might possibly think that they lose
> when their arguments are refuted, but one hardly hears of any significant
> philosopher being refuted on a matter of any importance. Possibly the
> Wittgensteins might want to consult game theory to tell us what kind of
> game it is that goes on forever without anyone visibly winning or losing.'
>
> I wonder just where Wittgenstein says this, or even hints at it. This
> 'interpretation' of Wittgenstein's views—his views *somewhere*—could
> scarcely be more misleading: it is simply *wrong*. Reading the *Philosophical
> Investigations,* might be a first step in showing why it is.
>
> An English translation of the Investigations (with the translated German
> text on facing pages),
> can be found at
>
>
> http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf
>
> This is the third English edition, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. It
> differs from the first English edition, of 1953, only insofar as Anscombe
> has corrected some of that edition's grammar and spelling.
>
> Robert Paul
> Reed (formerly Mutton) College
>
> ——————————————
>
>
>
Other related posts:
