[lit-ideas] Re: "In Philosophical Investigations"
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Wed, 19/5/10, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Does W say this in terms? If so, where?
----
>The reference Grice gives (WoW, p. 5, footnote 4) is "In Philosophical
>>Investigations". He surely needs not to specify where.
He surely does.
>The quote is:
>"Wittgenstein observed that one does not
see a knife and fork as a knife and fork
>(In Philosophical Investigations)."
It is not even clear to what extent this is direct quotation or loose
paraphrase.
Such is the way _PI_ is written, that context is more important than is often
the case with other writers: "If the lion could speak we could not understand
him" perhaps needs more sympathetic understanding than the reply "You obviously
haven't met my mate Aslam."
In addition, the usual way of looking at things is that only a 'p' with sense
can be true or false; I thought W held to this orthodoxy so the following
apparent equivalence between
"'INcorrect' (but also 'false', or 'out of order',
or 'devoid of sense')"
would need some defending. After all, W did not declare the p's of the TLP to
be false, merely nonsense. [But see post on "General's Box"].
----
>McEvoy confuses 'law' with 'law'.
They're easily enough confused.
>A law is something 'said' -- It's LEG-alistic, cfr. Lekton, lexis. So the
>'laws' CAN >lie. To think of 'nomos' as an ontological category is beyond
>belief!
The laws of physics are not legal laws: they are immutable laws of nature, not
products of human convention and decision. If you don't believe gravity is "an
ontological category" [philosophers' code for "something that exists"] try
flying without mechanical aid [as Bill Hicks pointed out it is safest to try
this not from jumping from a great height but from the ground].
Donal
Other related posts:
