[lit-ideas] "The Austrian Engineer"
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:37:23 EDT
Donal thinks that Witters was problematic about 'atoms', 'simple things'
(in life), 'simple objects', etc.
I go with R. Paul's interpretation (echoing Malcolm -- Was Mrs. Malcolm
sexy?)
Anyway, recall:
1. he (Witters) was an Austrian engineer. As a test, you can ask other
engineers, "What's a simple object for you?". I find that circuits and such,
which they regard as _simple_ are pretty complex to me. So I wouldn't trust,
ergo, an engineer (let alone Austrian -- vide Hitler).
2. In a non-interpreted language, we have
A: a,b, c,
B, d, e, f.
I.e, there are predicates, which are classes of individuals.
And then there's relations which are classes of ordered pair of
individuals, etc.
This is all the engineer needs to know. You can _interpret_ the thing and
call, "a" Pegasus, and F "flies".
So that the 'atom'
~Fa becomes "Pegasus does not fly".
This of course is true. But not because there is a fact to testify.
Indeed, there is no simple object, called "Pegasus" (although R. Martin, the
philosopher, to tease people, called his 'cat' "Pegasus").
If we think, in Apollodoro's (dirty) imagination, Pegasus flies, then the
object is a complex one, never a simple one.
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:
