[lit-ideas] Re: Sounds right to me
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:39:07 +0000 (GMT)
To evaluate this properly I'll need to attend more closely to TLP, but the view
offered by Phil is not supported by much argument or text so far, and that
"elements do not contribute to the sense of the picture" is quite
counter-intuitive. Brief comments below:-
--- On Fri, 19/12/08, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DM:> "the picture is constituted by the objects/elements
> within it and by
> their relations. If 'p' is "The cat is on the
> mat", we change the
> sense of 'p' if we change the 'relation' of
> the objects/elements from
> 'on' to 'under'; but we also change the
> sense of 'p' if we change the
> objects/elements to 'mouse' and
> 'running-wheel'."
Whether or not this is W's view, it is more intuitively correct (for what
that's worth) than the view Phil ascribes to W that "the elements do not
contribute to the sense of the picture." What part of TLP shows clearly that W
holds the view Phil ascribes to him? Does W assert what Phil ascribes _in
terms_ for example? Or is it to be implied or inferred, and, if so, from what?
> For Wittgenstein in the TLP, the sense of the picture comes
> from the
> relations between elements. The elements are the means for
> fixing the
> picture against reality, but the elements do not contribute
> to the
> sense of the picture. The elements serve the purpose of
> mapping the
> picture on to reality.
These are assertions without argument, and the last does not support, nor is it
inextricably linked with, the first two assertions. That is, it is (highly)
conceivable that "elements serve the purpose of mapping the picture on to
reality" and also that "elements _do_...contribute to the sense of the
picture."
> One might think here of a dot on a map. The dot may
> represent a city,
> but the sense of the map comes from the relation of this
> dot to other
> similar dots and lines.
No: its "sense" comes from these relations but surely also from the fact it is
a dot. Remove the dot and you surely change the sense of the 'picture'?
> The dot, by itself, is empty of
> sense.
This is merely said, not shown.
> Further, the dot may not represent a real city so that the
> map is
> imaginary. In this case, the map still has sense though it
> is false.
I don't see how this supports the view that the "dot, by itself, is empty of
sense."
Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
