“I want to call only that a
‘name’ || ‘name’
only that which cannot stand in the connection
‘X exists’. –
And we || thus you
cannot || can't
say ‘red exists’, because if there were no red you
could not speak about it.”
More correctly: If “X
exists” amounts to saying || is to
say,
“X”
exists || “‘X’
exists”, then it is not a sentence about
“X” || X but a sentence
about our use of language || usage
of words,
namely || viz.,
the use of the word “X”. It seems to us as thoughwe were saying something about the nature of red in saying that the words “red exists” make no sense || in saying that the words “red exists” do not make sense we were saying something about the nature of red || , saying that the words “red exists” do not make sense, said something about the nature of red. It exists just || – as it were – “in itself” || ‘in itself’. The same idea, – that this is a metaphysical statement about red, – is expressed also when we say that red is timeless, and perhaps still more strongly in the word “indestructible”. Butactually || , as a matter of fact, we want only to take “red exists” || to regard “red exists” only || to regard “red exists” as a || the statement: The || the word “red” has meaning. Or perhaps more correctly: “Red does not exist” as “‘Red’ has no meaning”. Only we do not || don't want to say that this expression says that || the expression says this, but that it would have to say that || this is what it would have to say if it has || had a meaning. But || ; but that in trying to say that || this it contradicts itself – since red exists “in itself” || ‘in itself’. – Whereas a 43 ¤ contradictioncould only be
said to lie || could only lie || , if anywhere, lies || might be said to lie in the fact that the sentence
looks as though it were speaking
of || about the
colour,
whereas || when || while really || , in fact, it is supposed to say
something about the use of the word “red”.
–
In
reality || As a matter of fact || In
fact, however, we may very well
say || do say a
particular || that such & such a colour
exists; || In reality, however, it is quite a
natural thing to say that a particular colour
exists; and this means simply || simply means
something exists || that something
exists || that there is something that has this
colour.
And the first expression is
not || no less exact
than the second; especially not in the case where
“that
which has the colour” || ‘that which has the
colour’ is not a physical object.
|
To cite this element you can use the following URL:
BOXVIEW: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,42[2]et42[3]et42[4]et43[1]_n
RDF: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,42[2]et42[3]et42[4]et43[1]_n/rdf
JSON: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,42[2]et42[3]et42[4]et43[1]_n/json