[MD] [Tuukka] the object of philosophy

[ridgecoyote at gmail.com]

Greetings Ron, 

It gives me the greatest pleasure to argue, I don't know why, and of all arguing and questioning  I enjoy, i most enjoy  arguing and questioning with Great men. Thanks for putting Wittgenstein's words here today for my questionable pleasure. 

Wittgenstein in his tractatus logico:

> "The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts.

True, but what is the object or goal of the logical clarification of thought?  Is it not to communicate to some other or others one's thought, as clearly and simply as possible?   Seems to me Wiggy leaves out the vital point of his tractitus. 

> Philosophy is not a theory but an activity. 

True!


> A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. The result of philosophy is not a number of 
> `philosophical propositions,' but to make propositions clear. Philosophy should make clear and delimit 
> sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred''.
> 

Very true 


> "The essential business of language is to assert or deny facts.

The essential business of language is communication. Period. 

> Given the syntax of language, the meaning of 
> a sentence is determined as soon as the meaning of the component words is known.

  The meaning of a sentence is determined as soon as the idea behind the word, in the mind of the communicator, is conveyed to another.  It's common enough to convey meaning to another, even though the component words of the message convey the exact opposite of the meaning intended.  Sarcasm, irony, indirect allusions, all make up the common practices of communicating thoughts.  This all just Pragmatism 101, I believe. 

>> In order that a certain 
>> sentence should assert a certain fact there must, however the language may be constructed, be something in 
>> common between the structure of the sentence and the structure of the fact.

Let us say that I wish to convey the fact that it is raining very hard outside.  I walk in, dripping wet and say to you "Man!  It's cats and dogs out there!".  There is nothing whatsoever in my sentence structure in common with the fact that it is raining, but it would be a hopeless pedant who expected to see pets falling from the sky, and not water. 

>> This is perhaps the most 
>> fundamental thesis of Mr Wittgenstein's theory. That which has to be in common between the sentence and 
>> the fact cannot, he contends, be itself in turn said in language. It can, in his phraseology, only be shown, not said, 
>> for whatever we may say will still need to have the same structure." 
>> -Bertram Russel (foreword)

I can't quite grasp the difference between "shown" and "said" as he uses them here. To my mind, we say things to show what we mean but maybe that is his point after all? 

Thanks again Ron. 


John