[Wittrs] Re: My Chinese Encyclopedia: The Red Chicken Footnote
- From: "College Dropout John O'Connor" <sixminuteabs@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:27:33 -0400
> I write:
> So how can something be left out if this something can never be included?
You wrote:
The next number in the sequence is left out, and the next, and the next and so
forth.
I write:
So, an infinite series of numbers is left out? Again, how can something be
left out if it could never be included?
You wrote:
I didn't say infinity is left out because infinity isn't something that could
be included. It's not a thing or object though, as a concept, we may refer to
it as an object of reference and thus one could re-write the statement in such
a way as to include that.
I write:
An infinite series of numbers is left out according to you. And I have also
stressed the "Wittgenstein's paradox" that no sequence of numbers could not be
accorded with some (infinite) series of numbers.
What else can I say? 2+2=4?
You wrote:
But by "left out" what I had in mind were the numbers in the series, which,
being open-ended would be a demonstration of something infinite, namely a
series that could not be completed. As a demonstratiion of an infinite series,
reference to such a series could be taken as a proxy for the concept of
infinity.
I write:
Are you just speaking tautologies? You say you had in mind an infinite and
open ended number series. Why not just say you had number(s) in mind?
> I write:
> What? Erroneous definitions? Incomplete definitions? I surely couldn't
> call them definitions. And yes, I think etymology is quite important. But I
> think this little squabble has gone far off the railings.
You wrote:
Are there no erroneous definitions? No incomplete definitions? Are all
definitions equal? Are all dictionaries? Must etymology's importance in some
contexts lead to its being taken as important in all contexts?
I write:
What is an erroneous definition? (sharks are mammals)
What is an incomplete definition? (sharks are)
There are many systems of classification. Are they all true, or just the
modern classification of life are true? Why not differentiate between fact and
custom? Some will tell you that humans are primates; I might say, if plants
are not algae, how are humans primates?
Someone says sharks are mammals. What good would it do to tell him he has the
wrong definition? Why not tell him he has the wrong word (or you think he has
the wrong word). So often philosophy breaks down into archetypes- only vanity
would allow one philosopher to tell another that he had the wrong definition-
rather than hhe thinks it to be the wrong word.
--
He lived a wonderful life.
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
