Syntax has the inclination to express him self in a cryptic
way. The aim is to be informative as well as humoristic. I
translate first his sentences in German , then from German
into Dutch and this way I am sometime able to 'grasp' his meaning.
Regards, |
The problem with metaphors is that anyone is free or allowed to have his own reading or interpretation. This way we may surpass the MM thread...
Regards, |
Marakanetz, I am very disapointed that you totally overlooked the central committee of the communist party (wherevere).
Regards, |
Because of Syntax I thought about Germans and then about
Hegel and his method of 'opposites'. For each concept there is the opposite one,then the opposites of the opposites etc. Say: objective-subjective; inside-
outside; on one hand and the other,good- bad etc.,etc,.
Now 'the soul' is of course the opposite of the physical so
we get 'metaphysical' speculations about inanimate physical objects like turntables. To my mind such kind of speculation should be allowed only for the speakers . Ie
those are 'essential' while, according to Aristoteles, only the essences are important.
Regards, |
I need to put this in Fregean way: any sentence with the word 'soul' as a part is not truth-functional. This word may have some sense but it lacks reference. There is no
bearer for this 'name' which is the same as a not existing
entity. To attribute whatever quality to a non existing
entity has nothing to do with science. This word is invented as the opposite of the word physical so to use this word means to assume 'extra physical' reality. There is no music kind without physical instruments , the human voice
included. The lack of musical vocabulary can't be compensated by use of metaphors like 'soul'.
Regards,
|
Dear Orpheus, What 'metaphysics' means is an inscrutable phylosophical issue. To reduce the complexity Quine wrote an article about 'On what there is'. Aka the ontological question about what kinds of beings there are. Stated in quantification terminology: 'there is some x such that...'
Well we need to put same name in place of the variable x to make sense of such a statement. As I already mentioned the problem is not the 'sense' but the reference. To be truth functional an expression needs both: the sense as well as the reference. The 'soul' obviously lacks the reference.
Regards, |
Dear Rok2id, To explain the 'point of this discussinon' I
will use this example. This also may explain the difference
between the sense and reference. We in Europe spend a huge
amount of money for the collider in Cern. The 'point' was
that the meaning or the sense of Higgs particle was clear
to any particle physicist. Ie what the contribution of this particle is to the theory . However no physicist knows if this particle exist. Aka if the name 'Higgs particle' has a reference. To answer this question we spend
all this money. If this particle can't be find the whole theory will colapse. Such is 'the force' of reference. You are of course free to explain to us what 'soul' refers to.
I assume that you will produce (then) some 'gibberish' of your own making.
Regards, |
Dear Rok2id, We obviously agree regarding 'the soul' in the TT's. In my first comment I stated that the problem with metaphors is the fact that everyone has his own interpretation. Your position is that inanimate objects like TT's have no soul. But you assume that living objects like humans do . My position is physicalistic
also in this regard. There is nothing 'extra physical' in
our brain. Regarding the theories the situation is much more complex. There is no way to forbid onyone not to believe in some theory, no matter what. But there is also
a conception of the truth which is independant of us. Ie
something is true or false independant of us. Ie if we know that something is true or false.I am not sure but I think that this is the Kantian conception of truth.
Regards,
|
Inna, you obviously missed the the point of reference.
The religious 'arguments' are silly in the context. Ie the
religious statements have no truth values. For the truth value one need the sense as well as the reference of the used names. Otherwise we may also discuss the peculiarity of Pegasus or the unicorns.
Regards, |
Dear Rok2id, You have obviously never heard about phylosophy of science. The truth values are from logic.The logical schematics mark the places with variables which need to be filled in with names such that an sentence function can become a sentence with a sense. But the names must have a reference for the truth values. You mentioning of Hitler en Stalin in this context says more about you than about those persons or me. But to put this more clearly: religion has nothing to do with science.
Regards,
|
Dear Rok2id, Your trouble to follow my thoughts are not caused by my English but by your education. You have no idea what you are talking about. BTW what is the reference of your word 'God'? |
Inna, I prefer phylosophical 'intoxication' above the religious one. If you want to negate some statement you need some argument. For example deliver some or any proof that religion has something to do with science. 'The one who says it understand exactly nothing' is not an argument . Besides 'exactly nothing' make no sense at all.
BTW your 'contributions' are more suitable for some religious forum. |
Rok2id, This is an international forum with the custom not
to comment on grammar and English capability of the foreign members.Nor the native English speakers btw. 'Not done' as it is called. For the 'sense' and the 'reference' you should try Frege, the 'father' of the modern logic ('About sense and reference'). Your lack of education is 'visible' in nearly any sentence you wrote. Your and Inna's thoughts about Cern accelerator are typical in this context. For the relationship between religion and science you both should try Galileo. |
Dear Thuchan, As far as I know the American military and
foreign policy are based on American national interest.
Our military member want to convince us that this policy is
somhow of universal benefit. I hope he will keep his job
after Iraq and Afghanistan. BTW I don't believe that 'they know to get the most out of anything'. Any idea about the foreign and the national debt?
Regards, |
Dear Thuchan, 'foreign and national debt is a matter of perspective'? This must be some new economic theory. Ie it seems to allow an easy way out: change the perspective.
However if you compare the European central bank with the American you should pay more attention to the printing (money) press. As a German you are of course aware about the German fear for the inflation. So no European bonds nor
printing press will be allowed by the Germans. If I am correct that is. Glad to 'see' you back btw.
Kind regards, |
Dear Lew, I understand your intention but there is no need for you to apologize for anything. I certainly don't believe in 'collective quilt' but only in the individual kind. The 'Rambo Rok' obviously hate all French, all Dutch, all Germans and so on. A military war-horse with ditto vocabulary.
Rok Rambo, You got it wrong with both assumptions. I am not
French nor Dutch. I am from Serbia. As a military expert you should know how much damage your military caused to my country. But well from a safe distance. No American soldier crossed our border. Can you explain why?
|
Dear Marakanetz, The inhabitans of this 'tiny' country are
born wariors that is why Rambo Rok avoided to cross the border. From 5000 m. they bomed Serbia and from 150 km in the Adriatic thy fired their missile. I am still wondering why. Even more so about their verbal invention of the 'collateral damage'. BTW how those 'toyz' work one can still see in Beograd, Novi Sad, Nis and many other places. But the 'collateral damage' which Bush caused in his own USA is much more worst I should think.
Regards, |
Dear Inna, 'born warríor' is a methaphor which make more sense than the methaphor of 'the soul in a TT'. You are obviously selective qua methaphors but without fundation.
To be honest I am suprised that you know anything about
Serbia, Holland and tribes in Pakistan. But 'to become a
warrior is a way of never te grow up' is of bewildering
naivety . Ever heard about 'compulsory (military) service'
(Vietnam) . Ever heard about a farmer who started any war?
Ie it is certainly not a question of free choice. The fate
of Serbia was more determinated by the geo-politacal place
then the 'Serbian soul'. But if one grow up in a continul
war state one become a warrior by necessity. The people have no other choice than to defend their ground. To impress our Rambo Rik: Hitler needed 500000 soldiers in the 'tiny' Yugoslavia to keep the 'feedpipe' for Germany
functional. For the same 'military expert': ever heard about Koerks and Stalingrad where the Germans were actually defeated? The American invasion of Sicily started pretty late in July 1943. As you are sellective with methaphors the Rambo Rik is sellective in the II W.W. history.
Regards, |
Dear Inna, I can only make some assumptions about you by
reading your post. You are to my suprise an eloquent person in the sense of education. Thanks to your latest contributions I was eble to see this. Hoever you are changing and twisting my arguments. I deed try to give verifiable arguments for all my statements. I deed not use the 'method ' of calling names as you and Rambo Rik. He got
'the source' for the 'sense versus reference' distinction
in Frege and you both got the recommendation to read about
Galileo versus religon issue. I was reluctant to recommend Darwin in this context for abvious reasons. Now regarding the 'Serbian collective soul' (the 'wild kind') I try to axplain this in, say, geo-political way. Why the Balkan is so important for the conquerors I have no idea. There is nothing to plunder there. But if one is forced to defend
him self this is as I called it 'necessity' not 'the soul'. BTW I already stated in my first post in this thread the problem of using methaphors: overybody has his own interpretation with as consequence that an inanimate object like a TT appears to have unlimited number of souls.
Regards, |
Helooooo!! Rambo, Srebrenica was and still is Serbian ground. As a military expert you should know that Serbia as a Western ally in the I WW was a kingdom which included
all Yugoslav territory except Croatia and Slovenia. It was called the kingdom of Serbians, Croatians and Slovenians.
Ie Serbia consisted of all of the rest terrytory. In the II WW Hitler used the 'national semtiments' to play off those 'Slavic brothers' against each other. In Croatia he installed an pro German governement. In the Croat trains, trams ,etc. there was a poster with this inscription: 'forbidden for dogs, Jews and Serbians'. I will spare you the details because I assume that you are well informed. After the war the communist party and 'çomprad Tito' devided Yugoslavia in 6 republics dismantling Serbia as a previous state. The post war Yugoslavia was dismatled by Germany (Gentscher) by unilateral German recognition of Croatia as a separate state. So the history 'repited itself' alas but it is abvious that the small countries are stil dominated by the big one. Strange to see an American 'military expert' with approval of the communist division of the (former-former) Yugoslavia. Your approval is obvious because you
assume that Bosnia is some separat state. Separat from Serbia that is. What are Bosnians according to you? The most of them are Serbians some of whom become Moslem during the Turkish occupation. If your 'military expert' status involve any historical knowledge than I hope that no American administration will need your advice.
|
Rambo Rik, Can you quote my statements in which I insulted
'this country' or my mentioning wherevere of 9/11? Regarding the 'courage' of the USA Military you should not confuse them with American people. Military organisation is an separat institution in America. A very expensive organisation with its own agenda for which all Americans need to pay. However you need to explain to American people what kind of benefit they got from you the military.
I never mentioned 9/11 in any of my statements. But I will
now. Your military mind has no problem of any kind with
boming other countries from 5000 m. distance in the air nor with missile fired at the syties with urban population and no military installations at all but you are crying the crocodile tears for three buldings in the USA. You shoud consult a shrink for such a inbecility.
|
Dear Geoch, You shoud know better than other members what
kind of destruction USA military caused in Serbia. You
are a neighbour of Serbia while your country was the only one to support us during this American demonstration of their destructive capabilities. For this American military
imbecile I have no pity and he demonstrated clearly in this thread what kind of person he is. But I will not participate in this thread anymore. I have stated what I have to say.
Regards, |
Dear Thuchan, Why do you want to keep Marakanetz out of
Holland ? For a person with a Ph.D it is improper to tell
such a lie about my second mother country. With Sweden Holland is considered to be the most social country in the world. You should know that I will defend Holland with my
Serbian 'fighting spirit'.
Marakanetz, It is very easy to check for your self. Visit
Holland, preferable during the gay parade. Ie the best illustration of freedom in Holland.
Regards, |
Dear Inna, You and my friend Thuchan, not to mention my Greek brother, are the reasons to come back. But I do intend to avoid this thread if possible. Ie if nobody
insults my two mother countries.
Regards, |
Tpreaves, There are some logical problems with your post.
What has the 'new and imroved' format to do with the 'soul'
of any TT? My comment on the 'new format': My God how is
such a mess possible? No way to find my own 'my page' nor
the category 'auction'. I have some 'jewels' of MM carts to
sell while I have no idea what to ask for. The mentioned 'mess'is btw more important than any (other) thread at present. In this sense your 'deviation' from the
thread content is very relevant. Ie 'some deviations' from
the subject matter shoud never be totally excluded.
Regards, |
Rambo Rik, To which 'mess' are you refering? What is 'a battle of wits with unarmed people'? We are fighting with, say, words but I can easely get some Kalashnikov in Bosnia for $150. Ie to belong to the 'ármed people'. Are you suggesting that you are unarmed? If so what kind of military are you? I thought that 'armed people in a battle'
should be your prefered battle territory .
Dear Thuchan, During my time in communist Yugoslavia any discussion needed to satisfy the 'party line'. The problem was : nobody had any idea what 'party line' means so there
was a huge number of 'political prisoners'. This story is for Inna who seems to be familiar with Yugo history.
Three political prisoners have the following discussion.
A to B: 'why are you here?'
B: 'I was againist Djilas and got 10 years'.
B to A: 'and you?'
A: 'I was pro Djilas and got 15 years'.
A and B to C: 'and you?'
C: 'I am Djilas and I got 20 years'.
( Djilas was one of the most important party members)
Regards, |
Dear Inna, You as well as Marakanetz are welcome in Holland.
Alas the story about Djilas is real. After he published his
book about 'Conversations with Stalin' he was removed from
his high position in the party. He was sentenced two times
for his writing. So the first prisoner got 10 years during
the 'power time' of Djilas and second during his decline.Djilas him self got a total of 20 years.
Regards, |
Dear Inna, I may reconsider my invitation because of the
'wild people from the mountains'. I am from the mountains
but not wild I will hope. I am civilizided in Holland where I got my Law degree ( Civil law btw).
Rambo Rok you are also welcome but live your Colt at home.
Otherwise you will be arrested at airport of Amsterdam by
your entry. |
Dear Inna, 'Very dark territory' indeed. Regarding the former Yugoslavia. All former republics of Yugoslavia want to become member of the E. Union. In this Union however there are no borders. When I travel to Germany I don't need any personal document. The war in Yugoslavia was about the borders. When those 'Slavic brothers' become member of the E. Union they will all realize how stupid they were. Not to mention immense loss of lifes and properties which can't be compensated in any way.
Regards, |
Rambo Rik, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia were part of Austrian empire till 1918. After the I WW Bosnia become part of Serbia while Slovenia and Croatia become part
of new Yugoslavia as kingdom of Serbian , Croatian and
Slovenian. The state Yugoslavia was ,say, contructed from
those 3 nations. What are the Bosnians? Well there is a muslim part from the Turks who were left behind, Serbians who become muslim, Ortodox Serbians and Croatians. Bosnia
was never an separate state.
During the II WW there were Hitlers collaborators everywhere as you put it. I know about France (Vishi regime ?), Holland and Yugoslavia much more than about other countries but assume that his method was the same in
all by Germans occupied countries. For many people there was no other choice then to collaborate in order to survive. Hitler was not used to ask anyone if he would be
so kind to collaborate. The Dutch fight against German was
about 6 days... The most Jews were delivered to the Germans so to speak. But thy , the Dutch , apologized to the Izraeli for this fact. They are aware to have be wrong. But I disagree with your statement: 'the Nazis deed not murder the Jews and the Gypsis'. They murdered the most of them to my knowledge. But you may mean 'indirectly' while puting it as 'directly'.
In Yugoslavia however the Jews had the chance to fight with partisans against the Germans. All those mountains of which Inna is so fond were the right precondition to fight in a partisan way. However in Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia
there were also pro Hitler military organizations so in some sense everyone was fitghing agains everyone else the Germans included. Very confusing to fight this way.Ie 'the
enemy' was everywhere. |
Dear Inna, While logic try to simplify there are some logical notions which can explain our 'loose way' of speaking. 'the French', 'the Dutch', etc impy 'all French', 'all Dutch', etc. All, everybody, some, etc. are called quantifiers. However quantifiers are not names with refering function. This should be obvious from this statement which everyone can understand: 'some (one) has stolen my car'. The problem for the car owner is obvious:
'some (one)' is not a name. The quantifiers are treated with so called 'satisfaction conditions'. The 'some' or as it is also called 'éxistential quantifier' is true if there is at least one object (person, entity) which satisfy
given condition. If John Gordon has stolen Rik's car then
we know who sastify the condition: has stolen Rik's car.
The 'all' quantor will, I am sure, disapoint our Rambo Rik. The statment, say, 'all French are liers' will be not true if there is one single Frenchman who is not a lier. Ie
'all' means that each and every object included in the class or set must satisfy the given condition. I am sorry for this intermezo but this make it possible for you to mention some French who were in the resistance movement in France. Ie not all French were Hitlers collaborators. BTW the quantor 'some' needs at least one person to be true but
allows of course many more than just one. To be precise one
will need the help of the so called numerical quntifiers.
Say , exactly 3033 French persons were resistance members.
Regards,
|
In the first place this is, I hope, an 'open forum'. There
are threads (topics) with technical and musical issues for
which , to be relevant in dogmatic sense, one will need
Ph.D in electronics or musical academy. Ie each discipline
has its own vocabulary. This thread is actually very vaque
in technical and musical sense. I would prefer,say, attitude above the 'soul'. If there is such a thing as the 'soul' then probable this will be one and the same thing in overyone or in anything. This is obviously not the precondition for the attitudes. We all may have different kinds. If this thread was within the (dogmatic)bondaries
of the 'soul in the TT' issue I don't believe we will agree
on anything. Ie any consensus was from the start not possible. But thanks to the 'open kind' of our discussion I was able to learn more about Inna, Rambo Rik, Marakanetz, etc. and change my mind about them. My first impression was
'religious fanatics' with God as 'éxplanation' of everything . As a atheist I am allergic for such kind of discussion. However I learned how eloquent Inna actually is
that Rambo rik is not a war-horse and Marakanetz is one sensitive and nice guy. This is to me the advantage of an 'open discussion'. From the other side I also noticed some
change in the attitude of Inna and Rambo Rik against me.
I progressed from a 'worm' and even 'French' which was meant by Rik to be a stronger insult, via 'Dutch scum' to a 'wild Serbian worrior'. Not a bad result I should think from two days of discussion.
Regards, |
In Shore, Sarcasm is a dangerous weapon in the hands of an
nitwit. To postulate some specific status for all Americans
speaks 'volums' about your intellect. As I alredy mentioned I got my Law degree in Holland and will add that I was university teacher for 35 years. I live in Holland for more than 40 years and because I am 190 cm tall I don't need to look up to anyone in Holland. You are probable a 'French Canadian' in the sense of 'French' as our Rambo Rik suggested. What is btw your competence regarding the Americans? You obviously like to speak in their name. I am sure Rambo Rik will protest. Do you use your Kalashnikov to earn your money? I will be not suprised at all if this is the case.
|
In_Shore, I was alas not able to find any humor in your first two sentences. In this regard I obviosly have some other sense for humor then Timeltel. However you remarks were addressed to me and not to him.
Your reference to my 'evolution' from a 'worm',etc., missed an important part of my 'meaning'. The fact that despite the inicial insulting qualifications from Rambo Rik to my account we are now 'good comrades' and able to discuss any question in a neat way. We agree to disagree about some questions but can agree on some other. Nobody
claims the apsolute truth for himself. So actually we don't need comments from those who don't participate in this discussion but have some problems with some of the participants.
Regards, |
Dear Inna, I am really confused by your linquistic toughts.
If the most Americans speak no foreign languages how can
they 'often speak (in) different languages'? Do you mean
Mexicans, Chinese, Russian, etc. who live in America?
BTW I assume that they also share in this remarcable 'status' of being Americans.
What is the point of the fact, if it is a fact, that 'quite
a few ...speak at least three foreign languages'? Why three
and why at least? Why should they anyway when English is the dominant language in the whole world?
I know some Americans who live in Holland for more then
10 years but are not able to construct one decent sentence in Dutch. In Holland, you know, even kids speak English.
Regards, |
Dear Rok2id, You are 100% right. Anyway according to my own
experience. I learned better German in 4 months in Austria
then in 4 years at school. I learned Dutch in 4 months and
was able to follow lectures at the university in Utrecht.
I was forced to learn Dutch very fast because the Dutch refused to speak German with me. But they prefer to speak English with English speakers so the English speakers get
no chance to learn Dutch. There are even schools and faculties with English as official language. When I come to Holland the students at high school learned 3 foreign
languages (German, French and English) while gymnasium students learned also old Greek and Latin. At present only at gymnasium is so much attention for the languages. The Dutch phylosophy was that in a 'open economy' like Holland
but also because of the Dutch spirit of comerce the languages are very important.
Regards, |
Dear Professor, My graetest intellectul debt is to Frege,
the German logician, mathematician and phylosopher (of science). For some strange reasons he still has the most 'students' in the USA and is rarely known in Germany. I learned English by myself to be able to read about him because the most publications were in English. Thanks to Frege I am able to analyse any statement made in logical
way. The most 'logical errors' are made because of the deceitful simplicity of the 'subject-predicat' form. Frege was the first to explain 5 different logical contents 'hidden' in the 'S is P' sentence form.
Rik obviously thought that he needs to know first from which country I am to be able to 'çharacterize' me. However he already had a preconception of what a Frenchman, Dutchman, German, etc. 'are'. I as a individual person was actually not relevant. His logical error was to think that 'all Germans are Fx&Gx' is somehow clear and stuffed with 'meaning' as well with 'reference'. This sentence is however the so called 'sentencial function' which means a sentence which contains variables. Variables
are not names but logical places in which one need to put
some name to make a sentence from a sentencial function.
If Rik thinks to know what 'all' refers to then he must be
also able to know what 'some' refers to. Both are quantifiers. If so he can become the reachest American ever in two years time by providing names by :'someone has
stolen my car', 'someone has stolen my x' etc.
You stated that some of us in this discussion use 'sterotypes' but your own 'typical American' is a prototype of a 'sterotype'. You dear Professor also made logical error connected with quantifiers.
Regards, |
Dear Thuchan, As you already know I speak 5 languages. I wrote many e-mails to you in German and you was very kind reg. your valuation of my German. As a military historian you should know that Russian was an obligatory subject in the educational system of the Eastern bloc.Ie you may missed my Russian. I know that language capabilities make one 'richer' in social-cultural sense but, alas, not smarter. One of course need some language to put his thoughts in the linquistic form. But if one has not a clear
thought no language will be of ony help. Wittgenstein thougt that thinking and speaking are the same. But I was always skeptical about this as well of other of his theories. To me he was always some kind of 'second hand' Frege who was his 'intellectual father' btw. Recent research has shown that he was wrong. My own case would be very confusing btw. Ie I would need to answer the question in which language I thought the things that I stated. Say: 'as the Dutch bastard', 'the German Nazi','the Serbian murderer',etc.
However I am sure that Rik is no more thinking about me as a 'Frenchy'(dank God), Dutchman, etc. but as a individual person with whom he can exchange his thoughts. Idem Ninna I would hope.
Regards, |
Dear Professor, Any general statement involve quantifiers.
That is why they are called 'universal quantifiers'. The
'some' as existential one (There is some x, such that) imply the existance of some entity. I stated that I am able to logicaly anylise any statment made, not because I am smarter, but because I learned this from Frege. I spend more then 20 years for my study of Frege and am still learning. Frege nowhere mentioned 'contex'. It was Wittgenstein who made this 'reproach' to Frege but from their correspondence it is clear that Wittgenstein never
understud Frege's explanation of 'S is P' sentence form.
Wittgenstein used this sentence form his whole life with
as consequence that nobody knows what he realy meant. Ie with 'context' one can enter any forest or labyrinth of the so called 'çoncepts' as is so evident with Kant and Hegel.
Desperate to find the way out from all the concepts he invented Hegel concluded: there is the unity of the opposits and even the unity of the contradictory. This 'great' German philosopher had no idea what he was talking about. As Frege also explained : a concept is a fuction with one argument while the relation is a function with two or more arguments. Those functions are of course expressions containing varibles such that by replacing variables with 'names' one get an 'real sentence'. Frege was btw the first to state that the sentence and not the 'concept' or a word is the basis for any linquistic and scientific analysis.
Regards, |
Marakanetz, My own experience from the communist Yugoslavia
is that it may be possible to forbide people to publish their thoughts but it is impossible to forbide people to think what they think. I have no idea why they refuse to switch to the former site.
Rok 2id, I am glad to see that you are able to make jokes
about your self. As with your German you are learning very
fast. With all of your experience you must be able to tell
us very interesting stories. 'Shoot' as it is called.
Regards, |
Rnm4, Glad to meet someone who is also interested in Frege.
He wrote this article 'Uber die Algemeinheit' (generality)
to explain the use of expressions like 'all', 'some', etc.
and never used expression 'quantifier' because this expression was not used in his time. You can't attribute your first statement to Frege as far as I know.
Regarding the 'context' : 'Nur in Zusammenhang des Satzes
hat ein Wort Bedeutung' is the so called 'compositionality principle' . Ie a sentence is an composition , composed from different parts so to anylise a sentence one need to 'decompose' it. Also an sentence need to be 'abgeschlossen' . Ie a sentence need to be a complete whole. Frege was primary interested in 'scientific sentences' those which are true or false. He wanted to construct an scientific language. Now consider an mathematical or particle physics statement. Should the mathematician also state that his sentence is in the 'context' of mathematics while our physicist should add that his statement is in the context of physics?
Why should Frege provide any explanation of sentences which
are not truth functional? Say 'propositional attitudes'.
He wrote about 'common language' only to illustrate why
'we' need according to him a more precise language.
His Begriffsschrift (aka new logic) was meant as such.
Regarding Frege-Wittgenetein you should read their correspondence in which Frege made comment about Tractatus.
There you can also find Frege's remarks about Wittgensteins use of 'S is P' sentence form.
Not to avoid your statement: ''no ,you can't analyse every
sentence because you have read Frege'' I must admit that you are right.
Regards,
|
