[quickphilosophy] Re: 1.12; 1.13; 1.2 & 1.21

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:55:13 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Neil:

Oh, OK, if your intepretation is that in 1.21, Wittgenstein is discussing 

not propositions, then you are probably already at the place I'm trying to get 
to. If Betsy is red, that can be the case or not be the case, and everything 
else, such as the Batcar being black or midnight blue, can remain the same. 

is the "facts" interpretation. However, if somebody--not you or I, it is now 
seeming--should take 1.21 to be about language, then 'Betsy is red' being the 
case does not allow everything else, such as 'Betsy is blue', to remain the 

In the world of objects and their arrangements, W then appears to be suggesting 
something like an multi-dimensional objects and properties universe, where each 
object is an axis and the coordinates along that axis are its possible 
properties. A point in that space  corresponds to a selection of properties of 
each of all the objects, and each of those objects could "move" up or down its 
axis, assuming this or that property appropriate to it. Of course, not all the 
objects would have the same possible properties, a rock can have the property 

being round, but it can't have the property of being alive; the 'alive' 

does not appear on its object-axis.


--- On Thu, 7/22/10, iro3isdx <xznwrjnk-evca@ yahoo.com> wrote:

>From: iro3isdx <xznwrjnk-evca@ yahoo.com>
>Subject: [quickphilosophy] Re: 1.12; 1.13; 1.2 & 1.21
>To: quickphilosophy@ yahoogroups. com
>Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 7:39 AM
>--- In quickphilosophy@ yahoogroups. com, Ron Allen <wavelets@...> wrote:
>> responding to http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/quickphilo sophy/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
>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.


Other related posts: