5,222
edits
Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway: Difference between revisions
Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway (view source)
Revision as of 17:41, 17 January 2021
, 3 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
(1) Take φx. We want to explain the meaning of 'In "φx" a ''thing'' symbolizes'. The analysis is:— | (1) Take φx. We want to explain the meaning of 'In "φx" a ''thing'' symbolizes'. The analysis is:— | ||
(∃y) . y symbolizes . y = "x" . "φx" | :(∃y) . y symbolizes . y = "x" . "φx" | ||
["x" is the name of y: "φx" = '"φ" is at [the] left of "x"' and ''says'' φx.] | ["x" is the name of y: "φx" = '"φ" is at [the] left of "x"' and ''says'' φx.] | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
If you had any unanalysable proposition in which particular names and relations occurred (and ''unanalysable'' proposition = one in which only fundamental symbols = ones not capable of ''definition'', occur) then you can always form from it a proposition of the form (∃x, y, R). xRy, which though it contains no particular names and relations, is unanalysable. | If you had any unanalysable proposition in which particular names and relations occurred (and ''unanalysable'' proposition = one in which only fundamental symbols = ones not capable of ''definition'', occur) then you can always form from it a proposition of the form (∃x, y, R). xRy, which though it contains no particular names and relations, is unanalysable. | ||
(2) The point can here be brought out as follows. Take φa and φA: | (2) The point can here be brought out as follows. Take φa and φA: and ask what is meant by saying, "There is a thing in φa, and a complex in φA"? | ||
:(1) means: (∃x) . φx . x = a | |||
:(2) means: (∃x, ψξ) . φA = ψx . φx.<ref>ξ is Frege's mark of an ''Argumentstelle'', to show that ψ is a ''Funktionsbuchstabe''. [''Edd''.]</ref> | |||
''Use of logical propositions.'' You may have one so complicated that you cannot, by looking at it, see that it is a tautology; but you have shewn that it can be derived by certain operations from certain other propositions according to our rule for constructing tautologies; and hence you are enabled to see that one thing follows from another, when you would not have been able to see it otherwise. E.g., if our tautology is of [the] form p ⊃ q you can see that q follows from p; and so on. | |||
Th ''Bedeutung'' of a proposition is the fact that corresponds to it, e.g., if our proposition be "aRb", if it's true, the corresponding fact would be the fact aRb, if false, the fact ~aRb. ''But'' both "the fact aRb" and "the fact ~aRb" are incomplete symbols, which must be analysed. | |||
That a proposition has a relation (in wide sense) to Reality, other 0an that of ''Bedeutung,'' is shewn by the fact that you can understand it when you don't know the ''Bedeutung'', i.e. don't know whether it is true or false. Let us express this by saying "It has ''sense"'' (''Sinn'')''.'' | |||
In analysing ''Bedeutung,'' you come upon ''Sinn'' as follows: We want to explain the relation of propositions to reality. | |||
The relation is as follows: Its ''simples'' have meaning = are names of simples; and its relations have a quite different relation to relations; and these two facts already establish a sort of correspondence between proposition which contains these and only these, and reality: i.e. if all the simples of a proposition are known, we already know that we CAN describe reality by saying that it ''behaves''<ref>Presumably "verhält sich zu", i.e. "is related." [''Edd''.]</ref> in a certain way to the whole proposition. | |||
<references/> | |||