Fw: [quickphilosophy] Re: An Anscombe Error Regarding Negation?

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 09:49:30 -0700 (PDT)


--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin N Brampton <martin.lists
> 
> Isn't the problem the question of whether any kind of negation sign 
> could be said to be a picture of anything?
> 

Yes, but as I suggested in my reply to Anscombe, I don't see what strictly 
prohibits it.  For example, if the two fencing stick figures means that the 
Joneses have separated, in answer to your question "So, have they??" a picture 
of the twain with their swords on the ground might mean that they have not.  In 
my view the picture theory breaks down because "picture" is as malleable as 
"game."

This "non-impossibility" seems to me to be in line with pretty much everything 
you've written in your last several posts, which I generally agree with.  It 
also suggests that we two (and Neil as well, as I read him) agree with many of 
W's own later criticisms of the Tractatus. 


One thing I do want to ask you, though, is why you say that W is thought to 
deny 

that there are logical truths.  His position in the Tractatus seems rather to 
be 

that every necessary truth must be a tautology (and he struggles with those 
statements like, "If this is green it is not red." which seem not to be 
empirical, but which can't easily be analyzed into a "p v -p" form.

Walto


      

Other related posts: