Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway: Difference between revisions

Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway (view source)

Revision as of 18:24, 17 January 2021

1,409 bytes added , 3 years ago

no edit summary

MLavazza

Bureaucrats, Editors, Interface administrators, Administrators

6,064

edits

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 That, when a certain rule is given, a symbol is tautological ''shews'' a logical truth.
-[[File:Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway schema.png|300px|center|link=]]
+[[File:Notes Dictated to G.E. Moore in Norway schema.png|300px|center|link=]]This symbol might be interpreted either as a tautology or a contradiction.
-<references />
+In settling that it is to be interpreted as a tautology and not as a contradiction, I am not assigning a ''meaning'' to a and b; i.e. saying that they symbolize different things but in the same way. What I am doing is to say that the way in which the a-pole is connected with the whole symbol symbolizes in a ''different way'' from that in which it would symbolize if the symbol were interpreted as a contradiction. And I add the scratches a and b merely in order to shew in which ways the connexion is symbolizing, so that it may be evident that wherever  the same scratch occurs in the corresponding place in another symbol, there also the connexion is symbolizing in the same way.
+We could, of course, symbolize any ab-function without using two ''outside'' poles at all, merely, e.g., omitting the b-pole; and here what would symbolize would be that the three pairs of inside poles of the propositions were connected in a certain way with the a-pole, while  the other pair was ''not'' connected with it. And thus the difference between the scratches a and b, where we do use them, merely shews that it is a different state of things that is symbolizing in the one case and the other: in the one case that certain inside  poles ''are '' connected in a certain way with an outside pole, in the other ''that'' they are ''not.''<references />