tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36235418.post117344865061808422..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-1173703589546610042007-03-12T06:46:00.000-07:002007-03-12T06:46:00.000-07:00Thanks very much. Without having read Hacker's pa...Thanks very much. Without having read Hacker's paper yet I suppose I should refrain from making a judgment, but this does sound like a plausible interpretation.DRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08332954000692559637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36235418.post-1173580728999125752007-03-10T18:38:00.000-08:002007-03-10T18:38:00.000-08:00Hacker argues (persuasively, it seems to me) that ...Hacker argues (persuasively, it seems to me) that elucidations are ostensive definitions 'seen through a glass darkly.' That is, they are ostensive definitions misconstrued as bipolar propositions (see 'Frege and Wittgenstein on Elucidations,' <I>Mind</I>, Oct., 1975).<BR/><BR/>The 'smoking gun' in favor of his interpretation is a remark that Wittgenstein made to Waismann in 1932: 'In the Tractatus logical analysis and ostensive definition were unclear to me.' That is, according to Wittgenstein, ostensive definition is addressed in the <I>Tractatus</I>. And even Kenny, who denies that elucidations are ostensive definitions, concedes that the only passage Wittgenstein could be referring to is 3.263 (see Anthony Kenny, 'The Ghost of the Tractatus,' in <I>Legacy of Wittengstein</I>).N. N.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05983492370711591794noreply@blogger.com