[lit-ideas] Re: "There is no such thing as philosophic logic"--LW
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:04:09 -0800
Walter wrote
If somebody could explain to me (us) what "philosophical logic" is supposed to
be about, then perhaps I (the rest of us) could weigh in on the matter of
whether Witters was right in denying or questioning its existence, and the
possible relevance of the expresion to what he understood his book to be
about. (Not that author's have any privileged insight into the meaning of their
texts of course. Gadamer da da da! But that's just if you ask me.) >
Donal agreed, and said
Several of my posts have made a similar or the same point, but perhaps
hope of explanation is forlorn:
"Whereof Wittgensteinians cannot explain, thereof they shall typically
remain silent".
There's been some fruitless discussion here lately of how the Tractatus
got its name and why Wittgenstein thought it was a better name for his
book than Russell's suggestion, 'Philosophical Logic.' And there's been
some hyper-irrelevant discussion of the meaning of the Latin name. Now,
after it's been discovered that Wittgenstein told Ogden that he himself
thought that there was no such subject matter as philosophical logic,
we're now asked to give a definition or an account of 'philosophical logic.
It's as if someone, having said that there were no such things as pond
leopards, had been asked for an account of what pond leopards were,
their physiology, mating habits, and what a safe way of approaching them
might be. 'What is philosophical logic, that Wittgenstein should deride
it so?' strikes me as a question that contributes nothing to an
examination, let alone an understanding, of the Tractatus or the Notebooks.
The best way to understand the Tractatus is to read the Tractatus, in
the original German, if possible.
I wonder who the 'Wittgensteinians' Donal has in mind might be. If he's
referring to persons on the list, then a snide and snarky comment really
gets us no further. If he's referring to certain philosophers, it might
help if he'd explain to us just what or who a 'Wittgensteinian' is.
As a reward for having read at least halfway through this post (we have
an honor system here), I'm sending the first part of account of
philosophical logic.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
