[lit-ideas] Re: "There is no such thing as philosophic logic"--LW
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:41:04 +0600
Walter O. 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.)
Meanwhile, as we engage luxuriantly in philosophically esoteric matters,
back in the provinces of Kazakhstan denizens such as our own Phil Enns are
under attack not by metaphysical spectres and epistemological poltergeisten
but by real live meteors! Yes, the kind that come from "the starry heavens
above." Phil will no doubt provide us with his own Heideggerian account of
"Why I teach in the provinces."
Are you and yours ok, Phil? I trust the meteor did not sever this month's
supply of Glenliver to you."
My cache of Glen's Liver is safe and sound from extra-terrestrial attack. I
write 'attack' because the first reaction in these parts was that the
Chinese had let loose a missile. The next theory was that it was the CIA
attacking ... well, it wasn't exactly clear what the CIA would have been
attacking in these parts. The Russians were saying they had shot it down
without being entirely clear what it meant to shoot down a falling object.
I don't find the title of the Tractatus to be all that interesting,
philosophically speaking, preferring to focus on the content. And here I
agree with Robert that, for Wittgenstein, 'philosophical logic' most likely
would be a kind of nonsensical expression. What I find much more
interesting is Wittgenstein's claim, from the quote I provided earlier from
the Notebooks, 'It must in a certain sense be impossible for us to go wrong
in logic.' It seems to me that nonsensical expressions like 'philosophical
logic' represents logic going wrong, but perhaps it would be better to
think of it as thinking going off the rails of logic. It isn't that the
expression 'philosophical logic' is mistaken, as though one might have
taken a wrong turn and gotten states of affairs wrong, but rather it only
gives the appearance of being meaningful. This idea of logic as a set of
rails, alone on which meaning is found, strikes me as a helpful image for
understanding why 'philosophical logic' is nonsensical.
Railing on the steppes,
Phil Enns
> Vsevo horoshovo, Valodsya
>
>
> Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Robert Paul wrote:
> >
> > "At the beginning of Wittgenstein's wartime notes published as Notebooks
> > 1914-1916用ublished, that is, in 1961, and revised by its editors and
> > translators in i979邑ittgenstein (as translated) writes, 'Logic must take
> > care of itself,' and soon after calls this a most important finding (or
> > 'most important point'; I haven't the book in front of me)."
> >
> >
> > It must in a certain sense be impossible for us to go wrong in logic.
> This
> > is already partly expressed by saying: Logic must take care of itself.
> This
> > is an extremely profound and important insight. [Cf. 5.473.] -
> Wittgenstein
> > - *Notebooks 1914-6*
> >
> > Under attack by asteroids,
> >
> > Phil Enns
> >
>
>
> This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
> http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php
>
Other related posts:
