36. Und wir tun hier, was wir in tausend ähnlichen Fällen tun: Weil wir nicht eine körperliche Handlung angeben können, die wir das Zeigen auf die Form (im Gegensatz z. B. zur Farbe) nennen, so sagen wir, es entspreche diesen Worten eine geistige Tätigkeit.
Wo unsere Sprache uns einen Körper vermuten lässt, und kein Körper ist, dort, möchten wir sagen, sei ein Geist.
[Rechtschreibung leicht verändert]
36. And we do here what we do in a host of similar cases: because we cannot specify any one bodily action which we call pointing to the shape (as opposed to the colour, for example), we say that a mental, spiritual activity corresponds to these words.
Where our language suggests a body and there is none: there, we should like to say, is a spirit.
[Translation by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, quoted from Wittgenstein, L.; Philosophical Investigations; The German text, with an English translation by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte; Revised 4th edition by P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte; Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2009]
36. Y hacemos aquí lo que hacemos en miles de casos similares: Puesto que no podemos indicar una acción corporal que llamemos señalar la forma (en contraposición, por ejemplo, al color), decimos que corresponde a estas palabras una actividad espiritual.
Donde nuestro lenguaje hace presumir un cuerpo y no hay un cuerpo, allí, quisiéramos decir, hay un espíritu.
[Traducción de Alfonso García Suárez y Ulises Moulines]
(I will continue to comment in English, for convenience. I hope this isn't a problem)
I believe that it was this section that made me a wittgensteinian - probably for all the wrong reasons. If for the wrong reasons, then I must thank my luck.
My personal reflections about Wittgenstein, Wittgensteinianism and the various attempts at a constructive philosophy in the wake of his teachings.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Friday, June 16, 2017
I've been participating in philosophical small talk at a place called https://www.facebook.com/CafedieGalerie
To structure our talks a bit, we more or less tried to follow the book Think by Simon Blackburn. We didn't really advance a lot and didn't quite stick to the book.
While rereading it, I found a curious discussion of Saint Anselmo's and Descartes' Ontological Argument, in which Blackburn says that the real problem is the difficulty to compare the properties of imagined entities with real, not only imagined entities.
But the real difficulty for the argument is of course the one Kant says, followed up by Frege (and not, as Blackburn maintains, shown by quantification): What the fool gets by hearing about the most perfect being is the concept of such a being. But there is no way to conclude from there that there is an entity falling under such concept.
I can not imagine any way to get around this problem. So everything else strikes me only as a distraction from the main point. It´s hard to believe Blackburn shouldn't have seen that. What could be his point here?
To structure our talks a bit, we more or less tried to follow the book Think by Simon Blackburn. We didn't really advance a lot and didn't quite stick to the book.
While rereading it, I found a curious discussion of Saint Anselmo's and Descartes' Ontological Argument, in which Blackburn says that the real problem is the difficulty to compare the properties of imagined entities with real, not only imagined entities.
But the real difficulty for the argument is of course the one Kant says, followed up by Frege (and not, as Blackburn maintains, shown by quantification): What the fool gets by hearing about the most perfect being is the concept of such a being. But there is no way to conclude from there that there is an entity falling under such concept.
I can not imagine any way to get around this problem. So everything else strikes me only as a distraction from the main point. It´s hard to believe Blackburn shouldn't have seen that. What could be his point here?
New Start: What I'm up to.
I have not been able to make up my mind as to how to go on with this blog. I have not been able to keep up with a lot of things and I don´t foresee that this will change soon.
But I want to make a statement that I will be able to find later and from which I might be able to continue eventually. It goes something like this:
I am dedicated, as far as I am, to the exploration of Wittgenstein's philosophy and to the genesis of modern logic and semantics at the end of XIX and start of XX. All of this, because I live under the impression that it was there that we missed opportunities and because Wittgenstein is still the best guide to discover them - there are of course many other thinkers who see this similarly in one way or another, Hans Sluga, the "new wittgensteinians", "neofregeans", Jaakko Hintikka and many other bright thinkers close to his ideas, or Robert B. Brandom, to mention just a few.
So I hope, eventually my work through other means (my doctoral research at http://www.ugr.es/; my work as secretary of redaction at https://disputatio.eu/, occasional participation in congresses, conferences, workshops, talks, etc. mainly in Mexico) will spill over here and with time get feed back from my readers here.
So I do not promise any regularity, for the time being.
But I hope I will be able to offer some item of some interest on some occasions.
Your commentaries will always be welcome and appreciated.
Yours truly
K.
I have not been able to make up my mind as to how to go on with this blog. I have not been able to keep up with a lot of things and I don´t foresee that this will change soon.
But I want to make a statement that I will be able to find later and from which I might be able to continue eventually. It goes something like this:
I am dedicated, as far as I am, to the exploration of Wittgenstein's philosophy and to the genesis of modern logic and semantics at the end of XIX and start of XX. All of this, because I live under the impression that it was there that we missed opportunities and because Wittgenstein is still the best guide to discover them - there are of course many other thinkers who see this similarly in one way or another, Hans Sluga, the "new wittgensteinians", "neofregeans", Jaakko Hintikka and many other bright thinkers close to his ideas, or Robert B. Brandom, to mention just a few.
So I hope, eventually my work through other means (my doctoral research at http://www.ugr.es/; my work as secretary of redaction at https://disputatio.eu/, occasional participation in congresses, conferences, workshops, talks, etc. mainly in Mexico) will spill over here and with time get feed back from my readers here.
So I do not promise any regularity, for the time being.
But I hope I will be able to offer some item of some interest on some occasions.
Your commentaries will always be welcome and appreciated.
Yours truly
K.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)