[lit-ideas] Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:12:39 -0500 (EST)
The very title, as translated
Traduttore, traditori
In a message dated 2/17/2013 10:48:34 A.M. UTC-02,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx notes that there is a difference between Russell's
suggestion,
"Philosophical Logic"
and
Moore's suggestion, "A Treatise on Philosophical Logic".
McEvoy suggests a book, mutatis mutandis, called
"God"
gives the implicature (only implicature, never logical implication or
entailment) that the author believes that "God" is not a vacuous name (vide
Grice, "Vacuous Names").
On the other hand, this implicature, McEvoy goes on, is cancelled by the
prefacing with
"A Treatise on God".
---
McEvoy's words: -- we are referring to
"a title that is a "Treatise" or Tractatus on them."
"For his "Treatise" suggests we cannot say anything about these fields,
though we can show or exhibit what is "the truth" as to them: and so to refer
to "Philosophical Logic" simpliciter "is wrong" as it wrongly suggests we
can say something about "Philosophical logic" - whereas, because of the
"limits of language", we can only offer a treatise on that subject-matter that
shows the character of that subject-matter but without saying anything
about it."
Still, to press the analogy. I would go back to Spinoza
Tractatus theologico-politicus
A Treatise on Theology and Politics
The implicature seems to be that such things exist. For the opposite
implicature surely there are prepositions available in the rich Latin language:
Tractatus AGAINST Theological Politics
say.
What bothers me slightly is that Witters can think he CAN say that he knows
what the 'ideal' is (for he thinks that "TLP" ain't it), and has a hoard
of British brilliant men:
Ogden
Lord Russell
Prof. Moore
to think for a diggestible way for British readers to make of this booklet
he published in 1921 in some obscure publishing house with the pretty
rudimentary title
"Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung".
For those of us who know German, we should notice the distinction between
"Logisch"
and
"Philosophische"
i.e. the fact that "Logisch" pre-affixes to "Philosophische" amounts to the
drop of the 'e' (it would be "Logische").
This construction possibly gave Moore the bell-ringing. It started to ring
a bell with Moore, and compared the
"Logische-philosophische"
with the
"theologico-politicus"
of Spinoza -- and the rest is history.
"Abhandlung" could never have placed Cicero or a classicist. It's more like
a MANIPULATION (handling).
Imagine a treatise against God which comes up in an obscure publishing
house as
"A Manipulation of God".
or
"A manipulation of theological politics"
---- So there may be something derogatory in "Abhandlung" that "Tractatus"
does not retain. For "Tractatus" is a bit basic.
McEvoy:
"his "Treatise" suggests we cannot say anything about these fields, though
we can show or exhibit what is "the truth" as to them: and so to refer to
"Philosophical Logic" simpliciter "is wrong" as it wrongly suggests we can
say something about "Philosophical logic" - whereas, because of the "limits
of language", we can only offer a treatise on that subject-matter that
shows the character of that subject-matter but without saying anything about
it."
It may do to compare other books called "Tractatus". It seems that if the
negative bias towards the subject matter is a point of interest, a
proposition like "contra" should be used.
I disagree with McEvoy's representation of Witters's meaning of 'nonsense'
in the letter:
"this suggestion may be corroborated by the parenthetical remark that ends
the quotation re "nonsense" - for this question of "nonsense" is to be
understood in terms of the distinction between showing and saying."
Recall this is a private correspondence, alla
Dear Jenny,
I love you.
Ludwig.
-----
So, I think the idea is that Witters is communicating to his correspondent
that he thought of Lord Russell as BEING RUDE when offering such a silly
title, "Philosophical Logic" (totally ignoring the 'handling' of these
matters). And he continues with this bitter humour by justifying Russell's
rudeness, alla: "After all, he must think my whole book is NONSENSE, as it
isn't,
so no wonder he suggested a nonsensical title to go with it."
I often think that the ideal title for Geary's novel is "UNTITLED".
While McEvoy is right that this may be just semantics, I think
"Tractatus philosophico-logicus"
is more correct, by virtue of the content of the book it is supposed to
name, than the current
"Tractatus logico-philosophicus".
Cfr. the scandal Spinoza would have provoked had he decided to get his
thing published as
"Tractatus politico-theologicus"
with philosophers wondering if SUCH a thing could be said to exist (as it
doesn't).
Seeing that "Tractatus", qua word, has a prestigious classical Latin
history, it may do to compare it with synonymous expressions in Greek, since it
was the GREEKS who were the masters in the art of discoursing pro and contra
things (Sextus Empiricus, etc.).
Cheers,
Speranza
M. Geary:
"My doctor said that I could either die or quit drinking. No decision
yet. I mean, like, drinking is the only thing I'm good at. But then I do
want to see if I finish my novel before I die."
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
