[lit-ideas] Re: "The Austrian Engineer"
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:00:49 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Wed, 22/4/09, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wr
> My guess is that the TLP simply does not explicitly address
> the issue. I have been reading to see whether it implicitly
> does so - but my current guess is that it does not.
> Wittgenstein assumes an isomorphism between language and
> reality and takes it that it is this isomorphism that allows
> language to get purchase on non-linguistic reality. His
> faith in this assumption is such that the question of
> illustrating it by even a single example (worked out in the
> necessary 'atomistic' detail) simply gets by-passed. Among
> other considerations, this view is supported by reflecting
> that if Wittgenstein did have an example to give he would
> have given it: if not in the TLP then in correspondence or
> conversation. A worked-out example could be seen as a kind
> of clincher for his overall view.
>
> I do suspect that it might be, that when the implications
> of the TLP are fully laid bare, it becomes apparent that
> just as language cannot state its own representational form
> (but can only show it) so "simples" cannot be said, their
> existence can only be shown.
It should perhaps be added that it is open to anyone to disprove the claim that
"simples" are unsayable by simply giving a worked-out example of a fully
analysed proposition with sense.
The difficulty I see is that such a search for ultimate simples is potentially
infinite:- we take, say, "The cat is on the mat" and start breaking down "cat"
into "four-legged creature etc" and then breaking down "leg" into "bone and
muscle" say, and then breaking down bone and muscle into smaller and smaller
units. It is unclear to me, particularly with no example being given, why this
procedure would come to sayable conclusion where we were able to state a unit -
a linguistic simple or building-block that directly corresponds with objects
from which reallity is built - that was incapable of being further broken down
in any way.
My feeling is that those who wish to say there is no reason why simples could
not be said in language, should therefore give a said or stated example of just
such a "simple": for if their claim is true why could they not state an
example? In the absence of any such example, it may be safest to conclude that
for W in the TLP the existence of such "simples" is another one of those things
that can be shown but not said.
Donal
Ldn
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
