[lit-ideas] Re: "There is no such thing as philosophic logic"--LW
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:43:13 -0330
I would have thought that a child who asks "What is a unicorn"? after just being
told "There are no unicorns"/ "They're not real" is asking an emminently
sensible question, one that bears direct relevance to his learning about
"unicorns."
Whoever it was that suggested that Witter's *T* is about "philosophical logic"
must have had something in mind. (Despite Witter's denial of its
appropriateness as a title for his book.) My question sensibly asks what that
is about. Once we have an account or conception, we can turn to discussing
whether the *T* is a kind of philosophical logic. And to do that is to get
clearer on what that book itself is about.
Cheers, Walter
Quoting Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>:
> 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
>
This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
