When
we say of a proposition of form aRb
that what symbolises is that ‘a’
“R” is between “a”
& “b”, it must be remembered that in fact
the proposition is capable of further
analysis because a, R, & b are not
simples. But what seems certain is that when we
have analysed it, we shall in the end come to
propositions of the same form in respect
of the fact that they do consist in one thing being between 2
others. How can we talk of the general form of a
proposition, without knowing any
unanalysable
propositions in which
particular names & relations occur? What
justifies us in doing this is that though we don't know any
unanalysable
propositions of this
kind yet we can understand what is meant by a
proposition of the form
(∃x,y,R). xRy (which is unanalysable),
even though we know
no
proposition of the form
xRy.
If you had any
unanalysable
proposition in which
particular names & relations occurred (and
an
unanalysable proposition =
one in which only fundamental symbols = ones not
capable of
definition, occur) then you always can form
from it a
proposition of
the
form (∃x,y,R).
xRy, which though it contains no particular names &
relations, is unanalysable.