Timeline for What is meant by an Appeal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 20, 2012 at 2:54 | comment | added | strainer | I will have a read of Chucks to that question too. But a point about "How could this person work over the proofs if he needed to appeal to the signs". Russel has set the person as playing a game, it would seem to be an overly frivolous representation of a person contemplating philosophy (somehow similarly not needing to appeal). | |
| Dec 20, 2012 at 2:31 | comment | added | strainer | It is a wonderful segment thankyou for bringing it. I cant resolve entirely what at that point is "needed". While he is reportedly informing the problem of a thing (appeal) he is constantly employing it, seemingly caught between its applicability and this (his?) advice to decline... -- "To say mathematics is a game is supposed to mean: in proving, we need never appeal to the meaning of the signs, that is to their extra-mathematical application." -- "concept of the surface of a sphere? How is it then a concept of the surface of a sphere? Only in so far as it can be applied to real spheres." | |
| Dec 20, 2012 at 0:03 | comment | added | Jon | i.e. --The person ignorant of the meaning of Russell's symbols does not, and cannot, appeal to their meanings. How could this person work over the proofs if he "needed" to appeal to the signs' meanings? Also, check out Chuck's answer to my question, "How do we know how to follow a rule." It directly relates to the passages you cited originally. | |
| Dec 19, 2012 at 23:54 | history | edited | Jon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added some context
|
| Dec 19, 2012 at 23:50 | comment | added | Jon | @strainer.It was disingenuous of me to add that citation without remarking on the context of the conversation up to that point in RFM. I shall add the section that came before as to prevent misreadings; it should be clear what he is saying now. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 21:49 | comment | added | strainer | Really,do reconsider - "To say mathematics is a game is supposed to mean: in proving, we need never appeal to the meaning of the signs" He is describing the folly of this. He is saying we must appeal to the meaning of signs. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 21:36 | comment | added | strainer | I read in this example, Wittegnstein is using the term appeal sensibly in his description of what is not sensible. Regard his other uses of the term which I cited too. In your section he says this appeal does not work, not because any appeal does not work (then it would not need said). We can seek simplicity and completeness, but if we mistake language in the drive for that, sense is lost before it is even examinable. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 20:23 | history | edited | Jon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2012 at 20:16 | history | edited | Jon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2012 at 20:09 | history | answered | Jon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |