[C] [Wittrs] methodological
- From: "J D" <ubersicht@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:16:08 -0000
Neil,
No major disagreements but a few clarifications.
1. My purpose in sharing that material was to assist you in determining
whether we were talking past one another when I mentioned "methodological
propositions". I wanted to provide the context of Wittgenstein's usage. And
my own.
2. Translating "Satz" as "sentence" in some contexts and "proposition" in
others is a tricky issue for Wittgenstein translators. Since he did follow the
distinction in some of his writings and lectures in English, the translations
are well motivated but sometimes underdetermined.
3. "Methodological propositions" so-called would be verbal expressions of rules
within a methodology. And they could be called "true" to the extent that they
accurately reflect the practice. But calling them "true" could be misleading
if it suggests that rules, per se, can be true or false, i/e/ that we can
justify our grammar by reference to reality. Because that is misleading, it
would also be misleading to call them "propositions" since that may suggest
bipolarity.
4. The boundary he is suggesting is not a sharp one, the boundary between rules
and empirical propositions, is blurred by such things as the way that symptoms
and criteria determining the applicability of an expression can shift (as per
BB and PI) and that sometimes what has been treated as a well-supported
empirical claim can come to be treated as a rule (as per PI and OC).
JPDeMouy
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [C] [Wittrs] methodological - J D
