I suppose that I know nothing about philosophy then. I thought that
inarticulate sounds are produced when one is alone in the toilet.
O.K.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 7/14/2015 4:53:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rpaul@xxxxxxxx refers to Borges (that's Victor) and his (that's Victor
Borges's)
lectures on what Borges (that's Victor) calls 'phonetic punctuation', and
quotes from Witers:
'So in the end, when doing philosophy, one gets to the point where one
would just like to
emit an inarticulate sound.' —Investigations §261.
Witters knew Bochenski well, and Bochenski knew Witters well, so I was NOT
surprised when I read in Bochenski's "monumental" ('it's like the
colosseum') "History of Formal Logic", writes, vividly:
"Let a, 6, c,. . . be any signs. Then "ab " cd" signifies "(ab)(cd)"; and
"ab. cd: ef. gh .-. k" signifies "(((ab) (cd)) ((ef) (gh))) k."
We may think of "ab.cd:ef.gh.-.k" as indeed one of those "inarticulate
sounds" Witters refers to in "Philosophical Investigations" (§261), as
cited by
R. Paul.
Only it's perhaps the opposite: pure articulation and no sound.
Borges (that's Victor) would pronounce the Bochenski formula as:
"/ei bi: dot ci di kolon e ef dot dgi eitch dot ifen dot key/"
A lot of articulation. But it's hardly philosophical.
In unwritten conversations Witters used another pair of examples:
i. We should eat, grandpa.
ii. We should eat grandpa.
"The sense is different: so in this instance, the comma may be deemed
non-otiose in spirit".
Bochenski is better at formulating what's going on here (He wrote this
originally in Polish, but I managed to translate the gist of it):
"Signs of punctuation may be omitted
if there are formulae with different
punctuation but the same sense;
or if only one formula, and that the
one we wish to write, has the sense."
The Brown Book expands on this, but then, as with much of what Witters
wrote (never 'published'), it is difficult to date.
In any case, the "Tractatus" ontology of the early Witters then allows for
'signs of punctuation' to be 'omitted' (or deemed otiose) iff, and to
re-shape Bochenski's attempt at a necessary and sufficient condition, "iff
the
formula without those signs has THE SAME SENSE."
where the hashtag is #fregeian and #sense.
Cheers,
Speranza
In a message dated 7/14/2015 1:57:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxx.uk_ (mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx) asks:
"Where in "The
Brown" or any of his books, does Wittgenstein suggest all punctuation is
"otiose"? Chapter and verse please."
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
