Well, I certainly appreciate all the pleasant responses. By popular demand
this will be my last post on this issue and since my words are simply not
getting through i will post something from Wittgenstein that deals with
what I've been trying to say.
"The logical propositions describe the scaffolding of the world, or rather
they present it. They "treat" of nothing. They presuppose that names have
meaning and that elementary propositions have sense. And this is their
connexion with the world. It is clear that it must show something about the
world that certain combinations of symbols--which essentially have a
definite character--are tautologies. Herein lies the decisive point. We
said that in the symbols which we use something is arbitrary, something
not. In logic only this expresses: but this means that in logic it is not
we who express, by means of signs, what we want, but in logic the nature of
the essentially necessary signs itself asserts."
The last sentence is particularly telling. Logic tells us how to say
things. That in language, it goes without saying that we obey logical
principles may make it difficult to see how dependent we are on logic. I do
not say, "the leaves were in the tree" because it would be illogical. This
is basic. But there are no language rules that tell me this. I know this
because of logic. This is a necessity that language naturally accords to
and therefore it works a ground for language and a limit to language. I
can't see why this is difficult to appreciate? Poetry also needs logic and
it would be missing something not to see that metaphors themselves are
logical. Anyhow, all the best.
sincerely,
daniel
|