[lit-ideas] Re: PI - text and comments - The Preface II

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 17:54:38 +0100 (BST)




________________________________
 From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
>This is all very well and good, sir. Yet you have left one question
unanswered: Who is the boss of Bas van Fraassen?>

More than one question has been left unanswered. But the one above may be left 
aside.

Even my correction of my post failed to be correct enough: 

Where I had written as a footnote:

>This key point partly follows from the ‘key tenet’ that the
sense of ‘what is said’ is never said in ‘what is said’, the sense of
‘what is said’ can only be shown. It also partly follows from the TLP’s 
positivistic
view that only the propositions of “natural science” have sense. Thus this key
point is a conclusion arising from an amalgam of the ‘key tenet’ and of the
TLP’s positivistic ‘doctrine of sense and nonsense’. By the time of PI, W had
abandoned the TLP’s ‘doctrine of sense and nonsense’ though he retained the
‘key tenet’: and therefore he was not bound to the view that what he shows in 
PI is “senseless”. In the TLP, W was bound to the view that what his
propositions show is “senseless” even
though it is “the truth”: hence ‘6.54’.>

The last sentence was subsequently corrected but the one before needs 
correction also: so that together they should read:

By the time of PI, W had
abandoned the TLP’s ‘criterion of sense and nonsense’ though he retained the
‘key tenet’: and therefore he was not bound to the view that what he says in PI 
is “senseless”, even if the importance of what W saysin PI continues to lie in 
what it shows. In the TLP, W was bound to the view that what his
propositions say is “senseless” even
though they show “the truth”: hence ‘6.54’."

Donal
Who doesn't always say what would show correct understanding of the say/show 
distinction

Other related posts: