Oh, GAAAAWD ....
Daniel, please go back to tidying your playpen. Or try taking Logic 101.
And at least don't mention Wittgenstein.
A drowsy slumber pains whatever little patience I have got.
babble babble oxinfree.
Nuff's enough -- I'm signing off this thread.
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: statement
> Dear Robin,
>
> Horror? Wow, that's quite a compliment actually. so what is "logical
> grammar". Well let me ask you the same question I asked Lawrence. Is there
> something different between an apple and an orange? If you say that there
> is, then can you find a language rule that states this? If you can't then
> why is it that the statement, "An apple is identical to an orange" is
> illogical? Is it not because, in language, we must conform to the logical
> structure of facts? And if this is so, then we have ourselves an immoblie
> foundation and limit to language that dictates the words we have and the
> apriori foundation of the relationship between their meanings. Is it
> possible to refute this as metaphysical clap-trap?
>
> the logical grammar is that which is apriori to the structure of our
> language, in that the logical structure of facts dictates the logical
> structure of our language. We can not, however much we may want to, make
> the earth flat; it is spherical. If we say that the "earth is flat" we are
> being illogical in spite of ourselves. That this is so shows that language
> accords with the logical structure of facts and not the other way around.
>
> This is not a matter of convention or truly subject to the changes in
> language (political or otherwise). When people discovered the the earth
was
> not flat but spherical then they felt the necessity to accord their
> statements with the logical structure of this fact. This necessity that
> they felt is the necessity to accord with the logical grammar that the
> world itself presents to us in facts.
>
> Now i call this the logical grammar but i apologize if that is confusing.
>
> daniel
>
|