[lit-ideas] Re: The Philosopher's Show

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:15:26 +0100 (BST)

 From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>

Yesterday I remarked on differences between the "logic of our language" insofar 
as both TLP and PI see this as the key to the solving philosophical problems. 
But some of what JLS says about TLP is not quite right imo:-

>The point about the physical or natural science is clear enough in the TLP: 
hence aesthetics and ethics belong to the 'showing' rather than the 
'saying'.  Quite a different view from empiricists and positivists that regard 
them as  'expressions of emotion', rather -- yet expressed in the language of  

It is perhaps simplest to contrast and compare W with the Logical Positivists, 
and in broad terms:
(a) W and the LPs share a view of the natural sciences - here they are both 
(b) W and the LPS differ fundamentally in their view of what lies outside the 
natural sciences: for the LPs what lies outside is "nonsense" in a typically 
dismissive sense, whereas for W what lies outside is more important than what 
lies within the realm of the natural sciences - even though it is "nonsense" 
because the "limits of language" are such that we cannot speak sense of what 
lies outside. Here W is not 'positivistic' where the Logical Positivists are.

Contrast Popper who is not 'positivistic' in regards to either what is inside 
or what is outside the realm of the natural sciences.

>If no such restriction to the natural or physical science (or world) is  
presented in the PI, it's not clear what the realm of 'show' is to  provide.>

The realm of 'show' provides insight into what lies beyond or outside what can 
be said with sense.

>It would seem that the TLP presents a view of the philosopher as commenting 
(and failing to supply anything important) about the natural or physical 

No: the position is better expressed in the broad terms above: the TLP supplies 
nothing that adds to natural science but it does supply a POV that shows how 
what can be said with sense [the natural sciences] are located within a 
framework that lies beyond what can be said with sense but where "the truth" 
may be shown [and only shown].


Other related posts: