display all the ideas for this combination of texts
3 ideas
18906 | Negating a predicate term and denying its unnegated version are quite different [Engelbretsen] |
Full Idea: There is a crucial distinction in term logic between affirming a negated predicate term of some subject and denying the unnegated version of that term of that same subject. We must distinguish 'X is non-P' from 'X is not P'. | |
From: George Engelbretsen (Trees, Terms and Truth [2005], 2) | |
A reaction: The first one affirms something about X, but the second one just blocks off a possible description of X. 'X is non-harmful' and 'X is not harmful' - if X had ceased to exist, the second would be appropriate and the first wouldn't? I'm guessing. |
23497 | Solipsism is correct, but can only be shown, not said, by the limits of my personal language [Wittgenstein] |
Full Idea: What the solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said, but makes itself manifest. The world is my world: this is manifest in the fact that the limits of language (of that language which I alone understand) mean the limits of my world. | |
From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1921], 5.62) | |
A reaction: I take it that LW later showed that the remark in brackets is absurd, using his Private Language argument. Commentators seem unclear about how seriously to take this claim. |
23489 | We translate by means of proposition constituents, not by whole propositions [Wittgenstein] |
Full Idea: When translating one language into another, we do not proceed by translating each proposition of the one into a proposition of the other, but merely by translating the constituents of propositions. | |
From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1921], 4.025) | |
A reaction: This seems opposed to Quine's later holistic view of translating whole languages. Is he objecting to Frege's context principle? |