[quickphilosophy] Re: 1.12; 1.13; 1.2 & 1.21
- From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ron Allen <wavelets@...> wrote:
> responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quickphilosophy/message/56
> Ron:
> I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at, and if I do,
> then I think we're disagreeing on what W is saying here.
I wasn't actually commenting on what W is saying. You seemed to be
arguing that W's thesis cannot work because we make non-binary
decisions, and I was commenting on whether that is a refutation of W's
idea.
If you want to know what I really think, here it is. I think the whole
idea of a logical structuring of language, or of knowledge, or of
thought, is absurd. It's not merely absurd - it is obvious nonsense.
It continues to puzzle me that intelligent philosophers attempt to
engage in such absurdity. In the case of Wittgenstein, at least he was
able to see the absurdity in the latter part of his career.
> Ron:
> You seem to egregiously misquote me, as follows, and then make a
> logical mistake:
On rechecking, I don't find any misquote, though perhaps I
misunderstood your point. I did use some wording similar to that of
another poster, but I never suggested that was a quote.
What you take as a logical mistake was not intended as logic at all. I
was simply using that expression as a label for a proposed atomic fact.
I'll grant that my wording was confusing. I guess I should have
invented a completely new label, but that would have made my
restructuring harder to follow.
> A non-binary tree has a node N with more than two children. There
> is no way to construct a binary tree from it, that replicates the
> parent-child relationship of the nodes, because there is no way to
> know where to put the third child of node N.
It was my impression that W was discussing facts, not logic. From that
point of view, a tree is simply a respresentational structure for
representing facts. Preserving parent-child relationship is not
important if the point is to represent facts.
Again, I'll admit to a lack of clarity in my explanation.
Regards,
Neil
_
Other related posts:
