early and late WITT/TRP

[Paul Mackin]

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu wrote:

> So I turn to you, 
> or anybody, to tell me what one makes of LW's repudiation of TRAC. in 
> PHILOSPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS?  Is he saying that the atomic picture approach 
> fails because  there is no way to--connect--the logical structure of language to that of 
> the world w/out--constructing--the connection (thus breaking the positivistic 
> rule)? 

Yeah, as I remember its being explained, W considered Tractatus not
so much as a possible basis for a logically-perfect language (Russell's
assumption) but as an essentially ethical pursuit--it would be WRONG to
state things that were not the case. And of course the book could not
ETHICALLY say anything about ethics because they are NOT the case. 
(I'm serious foax!)

Anyway this paradox, or whatever one would call it, was a problem for
W almost from the day of publication (maybe even before Mondaugen received
the famous coded message). The things that W cared about most could not
be in his book.

This is a special kind of problem only philosophers (at least analytic
philosophers) are cursed with. (For example, an author of a book on
good computer programming practice (such as Abelson and Sussman 
mentioned by Andrew the other day) would have no hesitation to state
flat out that designing software which works like it's supposed to is the 
ETHICAL thing to do. Ludy couldn't do this.)

Moreover, only AFTER Tractatus did W gain what he considered
to be overarchingly important incites about HUMAN language.  W taught 
children and observed the way they acquire language in all its complexity
and ambiguity. No book about what could or could not be said could
ignore such matters. (It was analagous to the way AI pioneers starting 
off in the sixties assuming logic and thought were the same had
to learn entirely otherwise in the seventies and beyond.)

Anyway a new book was needed.

Hope I haven't muddled or oversimplified too much.

				P.