[lit-ideas] Re: Sayable simples

  • From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:17:31 -0500

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]

No need to bother RH with this, Julie has pretty much wrapped up it.  When
Witty says "objects are colorless" he means they are the color of the color
they are not -- that is, they are the color-LESS.  To be tedious, a blue
ball is every color except blue (as Julie said), so the ball looks blue
because it isn't blue, ergo, it is colorless in its bluenicity.  I don't see
dem apples that Donal wants to peddle.  Ergo, they must be there, as Witty
would argue.

Donal brokers no simples.  I can appreciate that.  Everything is a mix -- 
even the Christian God.  Jehovah and Allah pretend they're simple, but God
in heaven have you ever read their bios?  Talk about your screwed-up,
bi-polar, multiple personalities!  No, not even God is one.  Everything is
mix of mixtures.  Donal and I agree about this, but this only.  Unless he
has some other argument to make.  Maybe I'll agree with him about something
else, too.  Who knows?  Life is short but never simple, except for

Mike Geary
a simpleton if ever there were one

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: