[lit-ideas]
- From: "Adriano Palma" <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:12:42 +0200
** Low Priority **
** Reply Requested by 4/11/2012 (Wednesday) **
come on. dude.............................. give it a
break............. I understood the pain and suffering of reading
wittgenstein, but you gotta give yourself a relief
? נכון
>>> Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/04/2012 05:07 PM >>>
From: Adriano Palma Palma@xxxxxxxxxx
>can we cut to the chase?
would 'donal' provide a text where in philosophical investigations the
funny man from Vienna states there is a say/show difference or what?>
But, equally, where does W say there is no say/show "difference" or
distinction in PI (or his later philosophy generally)?
Absent explicit statements either way, the burden of proof cannot be
used here to say 'unless he said it then it's not the case': when he has
not 'said' anything explicit either way, then both ways are equally
supported by the mere fact that he has not said anything explicit on the
point, and that means that the fact he has said nothing explicit on the
point in itself supports neither of them as against the other.
What this leaves us with, then, is what are the arguments pro and con
on the point (absent explicit statement by W either way)?
My previous post addressed this at some length and argued, inter alia,
that as the 'saying/showing' distinction was fundamental to TLP then W
would have said in PI if he had abandoned it; but if he had not
abandoned it, then it is understandable why he did not say so but took
it as part of the "background" to PI - especially, as Monk says, because
in the later philosophy W follows more closely or "literally" his view
that the philosopher cannot say but only show, and so does not 'say' he
is "showing not saying" but simply shows it.
In textual support of this, I have also quoted at some length what W
'says' in PI where he concludes that what this "shows" is that there is
a way of following a rule that is "not an interpretation" but which is
"exhibited" [or shown] in 'obeying the rule' and 'going against it' in
particular cases. I claim that this shows, though it does not say, that
the 'saying/showing' distinction is at work in PI - indeed, is clearly
fundamental to understanding what is involved in following a rule.
[Of course, a twelve part series can be made into a twenty four part
series if every episode has to be repeated, and a thirty-six part series
if it has to be repeated three times etc. ....]
Dnl
Ldn
Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
Other related posts:
