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

Line 136:

The reason why "The property of not being green is not green" is ''nonsense,'' is because we have only given meaning to the fact that "green" stands to the right of a name; and "the property of not being green" is obviously not ''that.''

''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of (or in any other relation to) the symbol of a property. For the symbol of a property, e.g., ''ψ''x is ''that'' ''ψ'' stands to the left of a name form, and another symbol ''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of such a ''fact'': if it could, we should have an illogical language, which is impossible.~~<blockquote>~~p is false = ~(p is true) Def.~~</blockquote>~~It is very important that the apparent logical relations ∨, ⊃, etc. need brackets, dots, etc., i.e. have "ranges"; which by itself shews they are not relations. This fact has been overlooked, because it is so universal —the very thing which makes it so important. [''Cf''. 5.461.]

''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of (or in any other relation to) the symbol of a property. For the symbol of a property, e.g., ''ψ''x is ''that'' ''ψ'' stands to the left of a name form, and another symbol ''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of such a ''fact'': if it could, we should have an illogical language, which is impossible.

:p is false = ~(p is true) Def.

It is very important that the apparent logical relations ∨, ⊃, etc. need brackets, dots, etc., i.e. have "ranges"; which by itself shews they are not relations. This fact has been overlooked, because it is so universal —the very thing which makes it so important. [''Cf''. 5.461.]

There are ''internal'' relations between one proposition and another; but a proposition cannot have to another ''the'' internal relation which a ''name'' has to the proposition of which it is a constituent, and which ought to be meant by saying it "occurs" in it. In this sense one proposition can't "occur" in another.

Line 150:

Line 154:

What symbolizes in a symbol, is that which is common to all the symbols which could in accordance with the rules of logic = syntactical rules for manipulation of symbols, be substituted for it. [''Cf.'' 3.344.]

The question whether a proposition has sense (''Sinn'') can never depend on the ''truth'' of another proposition about a constituent of the first. E.g., the question whether (x) x = x has meaning (''Sinn'') can't depend on the question whether (∃x) x = x is ''true.'' It doesn't describe reality at all, and deals therefore solely with symbols; and it says that

The question whether a proposition has sense (''Sinn'') can never depend on the ''truth'' of another proposition about a constituent of the first. E.g., the question whether (x) x = x has meaning (''Sinn'') can't depend on the question whether (∃x) x = x is ''true.'' It doesn't describe reality at all, and deals therefore solely with symbols; and it says that they must ''symbolize'', but not ''what'' they symbolize.

they must ''symbolize'', but not ''what'' they symbolize.

It's obvious that the dots and brackets are symbols, and obvious that they haven't any ''independent'' meaning. You must, therefore, in order to introduce so-called "logical constants" properly, introduce the general notion of ''all possible'' combinations of them = the general form of a proposition. You thus introduce both ab-functions, identity,

and universality (the three fundamental constants) simultaneously.

It's obvious that the dots and brackets are symbols, and obvious that they haven't any ''independent'' meaning. You must, therefore, in order to introduce so-called "logical constants" properly, introduce the general notion of ''all possible'' combinations of them = the general form of a proposition. You thus introduce both ab-functions, identity, and universality (the three fundamental constants) simultaneously.

The ''variable proposition'' p ⊃ p is not identical with the ''variable proposition'' ~(p . ~p). The corresponding universals ''would'' be identical. The variable proposition ~(p . ~p) shews that out of ~ (p.q) you get a tautology by substituting ~p for q, whereas the other does not shew this.

Line 181:

The relation of "I believe p" to "p" can be compared to the relation of' "p" says (besagt) p' to p: it is just as impossible that ''I'' should be a simple as that "p" should be. [''Cf''. 5.542.]

----

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 The reason why "The property of not being green is not green" is ''nonsense,'' is because we have only given meaning to the fact that "green" stands to the right of a name; and "the property of not being green" is obviously not ''that.''
-''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of (or in any other relation to) the symbol of a property. For the symbol of a property, e.g., ''ψ''x is ''that'' ''ψ'' stands to the left of a name form, and another symbol ''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of such a ''fact'': if it could, we should have an illogical language, which is impossible.<blockquote>p is false = ~(p is true) Def.</blockquote>It is very important that the apparent logical relations ∨, ⊃, etc. need brackets, dots, etc., i.e. have "ranges"; which by itself shews they are not relations. This fact has been overlooked, because it is so universal —the very thing which makes it so important. [''Cf''. 5.461.]
+''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of (or in any other relation to) the symbol of a property. For the symbol of a property, e.g., ''ψ''x is ''that'' ''ψ'' stands to the left of a name form, and another symbol ''φ'' cannot possibly stand to the left of such a ''fact'': if it could, we should have an illogical language, which is impossible.
+:p is false = ~(p is true) Def.
+It is very important that the apparent logical relations ∨, ⊃, etc. need brackets, dots, etc., i.e. have "ranges"; which by itself shews they are not relations. This fact has been overlooked, because it is so universal —the very thing which makes it so important. [''Cf''. 5.461.]
 There are ''internal'' relations between one proposition and another; but a proposition cannot have to another ''the'' internal relation which a ''name'' has to the proposition of which it is a constituent, and which ought to be meant by saying it "occurs" in it. In this sense one proposition can't "occur" in another.
@@ Line 150: / Line 154: @@
 What symbolizes in a symbol, is that which is common to all the symbols which could in accordance with the rules of logic = syntactical rules for manipulation of symbols, be substituted for it. [''Cf.'' 3.344.]
-The question whether a proposition has sense (''Sinn'') can never depend on the ''truth'' of another proposition about a constituent of the first. E.g., the question whether (x) x = x has meaning (''Sinn'') can't depend on the question whether (∃x) x = x is ''true.'' It doesn't describe reality at all, and deals therefore solely with symbols; and it says that
+The question whether a proposition has sense (''Sinn'') can never depend on the ''truth'' of another proposition about a constituent of the first. E.g., the question whether (x) x = x has meaning (''Sinn'') can't depend on the question whether (∃x) x = x is ''true.'' It doesn't describe reality at all, and deals therefore solely with symbols; and it says that they must ''symbolize'', but not ''what'' they symbolize.
-they must ''symbolize'', but not ''what'' they symbolize.
-It's obvious that the dots and brackets are symbols, and obvious that they haven't any ''independent'' meaning. You must, therefore, in order to introduce so-called "logical constants" properly, introduce the general notion of ''all possible'' combinations of them = the general form of a proposition. You thus introduce both ab-functions, identity,
-and universality (the three fundamental constants) simultaneously.
+It's obvious that the dots and brackets are symbols, and obvious that they haven't any ''independent'' meaning. You must, therefore, in order to introduce so-called "logical constants" properly, introduce the general notion of ''all possible'' combinations of them = the general form of a proposition. You thus introduce both ab-functions, identity, and universality (the three fundamental constants) simultaneously.
 The ''variable proposition'' p ⊃ p is not identical with the ''variable proposition'' ~(p . ~p). The corresponding universals ''would'' be identical. The variable proposition ~(p . ~p) shews that out of ~ (p.q) you get a tautology by substituting ~p for q, whereas the other does not shew this.
@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 The relation of "I believe p" to "p" can be compared to the relation of' "p" says (besagt) p' to p: it is just as impossible that ''I'' should be a simple as that "p" should be. [''Cf''. 5.542.]
 ----
 <references />