[C] [Wittrs] !!!Re: Re: Metaphysical Versus Mystical
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:53:09 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
> I. I was only saying that the statements were nonsense in Tractarian
terms.
Ah, thanks for that clarification. I always thought the Vienna circle
went too far in their "nonsense" claims.
> Another way of saying it is: the only true form of thinking is
> science, logic, math.
Yes, I guess that's the old version of the kind of extreme physicalism
we sometimes see in AI discussion.
> 2. On the issue of mathematics being empty when not put in service
> of picturable statements, see:
A side remark. As a mathematician, I don't have any problem with the
view that mathematical propositions are analytic (true by virtue of the
meanings of the terms). I am inclined to disagree with the view that
they are tautological, but that's because I make a distinction between
tautological and analytic.
> 6.21 mathematical propositions express no thoughts.
That's clearly wrong, for they certainly express the thoughts of
mathematicians. However, most mathematicians would agree that
mathematics is not about the real world, which is probably the main
thing 6.21 was trying to say.
> 6.211 In life it is never a mathematical proposition which we need,
> but we use mathematical propositions only in order to infer from
> propositions which do not belong to mathematics to others which
> equally do not belong to mathematics.
I would count that as largely correct, except that it ignores that
mathematics can be an art form in its own right.
> 3. On the issue of things being capable of being said because we say
> them, Tractarian Wittgenstein would say that much of what people
> actually say is nonsense or should be passed over in silence. And
> that when they actually do speak, they merely reflect inferior
> thoughts. And to think properly -- without any inferiority --
> you need to form propositions.
One of my criticisms of philosophers is that they say such things, yet
they have not adequately analyzed what is required in order to form
propositions. (Incidently, that was part of my disagreement with
Stuart in an earlier thread).
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
