[lit-ideas] "Substanz der Welt, Die" (TLP 2.0211)
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:07:07 EDT
susbtanz der welt, die. -- something Wittgenstein means. (apres Black,
Companion to W's T.)
In a message dated 4/29/2009 6:31:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
I take it that this is an expression of scepticism about whether
Wittgenstein uses the word Substanz in the Tractatus.
----
Plain ignorance. And thanks for the quotes! Beautiful. And I see no umlaut
required, "Substanz" indeed.
>there is an isomorphism between thought,
>propositions, and the world.
Good.
>2.021 Objects make up
>the substance of the world [die Substanz der
>Welt].
Make up? Only joking. Today I found myself singing, "The moment I wake up,
before I put on my make up ..." Etc.
----
In the above I take then that "Welt" alla Austin in "The meaning of a word"
(in Philosophical Papers)
-- The substance of the world
-- the substantive of the 'world',
etc.
----
I find the Kantian-Aristotelianism unswallowable. Coming from Grice yes,
but from Witters? Aren't objekte supposed to be an 'epistemological' category
(ob-ject, the things 'pro-jected' out there), while 'substanz' and 'welt'
(translating Latin, cosmos, I assume -- via Greek) is _ontologia specialis_
par excellence?
>That is why they cannot be composite.
Well, it would all blow up, right?
---- My, the things that pass for philosophy! The sad thing is taking full
responsibility for students learning them! (I loved R. Paul when he said,
"My citing Anscombe does not mean I agree with what she says; similarly
should I cite Leibniz's on the principle of the indiscernibles"). (or words to
that effect).
>2.0211 If the world had no substance [Hätte die Welt keine Substanz],
>then whether a proposition had sense would depend on whether another
>proposition was true.
Well, the 'if' is tricky enough. If this is a 'if ... THEN' (Grice has a
point about this in WOW, iv) it's _trickier_. It's a totally unverifiable
counterfactual (In Argentina, Argies would scream, "If Evita were alive
['hatte Evita im spatio-temporal kontinuitaet'] she would be a terrorist!"
---
But back to the counterfactual:
The idea is that this is tollendo tollens tollens. I.e. the conclusio is
meant to be false, as per, "Disgusted!", "But it does not!" (i.e. "it" does
not depend on whether another proposition IS true"... therefore premise has
to be negated.
I assume we have to understand 'proposition' as atomic there. For surely
the proposition, "McDonald is a rich farmer" ('he is filthy rich') does
depend ('truth-conditionally') on his having geese, duck, cows, etc.
In any case, I'm relieved he only asks for the 'substance of the world'.
For Aristotle and Hume, etc., the problem is the substance of this apple
(which for Hume, is not, since the apple reduces to the 'bundle' of sensations
that make up for it: smell, taste, colour, etc).
Cheers,
JL
**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
