[lit-ideas] "Objects Are Colourless" (Wittgenstein)

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:21:55 EDT

In a message dated 5/17/2004 1:22:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Donal McEvoy:
> RH in particular may be interested to comment on a suggestion I read
> elsewhere that what P&M translate as "Roughly speaking: objects are
> colourless" [which might suggest there is a contrasting sense in which
> have colour] is more properly translated as 'As an aside/By the
> by/Incidentally: objects are colorless".
> In this case it would seem that something that is blue is not an object,
> least according to Wittgenstein.
> How does anyone like dem apples [which according to this interpretation
> not simples either]
As McEvoy notes, there is a difference between

(1) Roughly speaking, objects are colourless.
(2) Incidentally, objects are colourless.

I wonder what's the German for the initial adverbial Wittgenstein used.

On the face of it, it does sound as paradoxical. 

(3) Things are colourless.

does not strike me as paradoxical -- if we think of the thing as the 
thing-in-itself. Since colour is a property of a _phenomenon_, not a _thing_.

Wittgenstein was probably not too familiar with the Phainomenon/Noumenon 
distinction, and thus perhaps he used 'object' when he meant _thing_?



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:

  • » [lit-ideas] "Objects Are Colourless" (Wittgenstein)