No edit summary |
(copy discussion to the talk page) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Discussion of [[PR of Reading Philosophical Investigations by JWSchmidt]] was moved to [[Talk:PR of Reading Philosophical Investigations by JWSchmidt]]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:04, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC) |
||
| − | From the author: (Sounds neat) |
||
| − | |||
| − | John, |
||
| − | |||
| − | Yes there there should be more biographical material about his family and education before he went to Frege and Frege sent him to Russell. I think it would be out of place before the preface and preview. Before the discussion of the Tractatus it would be logical historical background leading to the writing of the Tractatus. |
||
| − | |||
| − | 1)The context here is about the absence of context. If a person was to try to find the aphorism in the original book, he would get no information from ''Viking Book of Aphorisms''. All you can get is the name of the writer and the copywrite date which would narrow the number of books by Wittgenstein in print at that time:three. The attempt to give the aphorism a context would be the arduous task of searching through the three volumes. I guess this might be a better paragraph than the one that is in opus. |
||
| − | |||
| − | 2) The paragraph was about ''my''grasp of the aphorism as used by other arguments. Before I had read Wittgenstein himself, the context would be that which the othor author put it in. I understood it well enough to see there was some insight there, but not well enough to see it as more than ''poetic'' insight. Obviously the point was not clear, so I will either rewrite it or drop it. |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | 3) I think it would be unwise to articulate further on these two assumptions at this point. The explanation of the 2 concepts of infinity will definitely by ''described'' at the proper time. Even this, which I consider only logical, is tied up with the "this life only" viewpoint. Denying that one of the concepts of infinity is self-contradictory clashes with our concept of God---an actual infinity of actual infinities. God can never be thought of as a potential infinity because it would mean God can never be complete, a very untheological idea. This would also mean that the idea of an afterlife would be out of the question. |
||
| − | |||
| − | I may not be putting this through very well to you at this moment, but my main point is that arguing to prove my assumptions are true would be pointless:if not in theory at least in historical reality. |
||
Latest revision as of 15:04, 10 August 2005
Discussion of PR of Reading Philosophical Investigations by JWSchmidt was moved to Talk:PR of Reading Philosophical Investigations by JWSchmidt. --JWSchmidt 15:04, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)