tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36235418.post117337182414254268..comments2022-11-14T06:40:41.662-08:00Comments on Tractatus Blogico-Philosophicus: DRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08332954000692559637noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36235418.post-55416933150985775892014-03-30T05:59:32.561-07:002014-03-30T05:59:32.561-07:00What puzzles me is the idea that the meaning of a ...What puzzles me is the idea that the meaning of a primitive sign is the object corresponding to it <i>combined with</i> the idea that signs have meaning only in the context of a proposition. There isn't a contradiction here, but if the first idea is true, why is the second? I suppose I need to re-read this part of the book to see both what I was puzzled about and how the puzzle might be solved. Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36235418.post-39941989441400277682014-03-29T07:02:41.926-07:002014-03-29T07:02:41.926-07:00Am I right in thinking that what W. refers to by p...Am I right in thinking that what W. refers to by primitive signs and signs-having-meaning-on-their-own are not necessarily the same? Isn't the meaning of a primitive sign the object corresponding to it (3.203)? If so, why is it hard to see that it has meaning?wonderernoreply@blogger.com