“But isn't the explanation inexact surely || it an inexact
explanation after all?” –
Yes,
why || Why
should we not || shouldn't
we call it “inexact”?
Only || But
let
us || let's understand what
“inexact” means.
For, in the first place, it
does
not || doesn't mean “useless”,
otherwise it would mean, || we should
say: “inexact for
this || such & such
a purpose”; in the second
place: –
let
us || let's consider what as
opposed to this inexact explanation we should call an
“exact” || we should call an “exact”
explanation as opposed to this inexact one.
Perhaps that of drawing a chalk
mark || line on the place,
of marking off a
“district” || ‘district’. –
But then it occurs to us at once || at once occurs to
us that the chalk line has a breadth;
so that || thus a colour boundary
would be more exact.
But does this exactitude still have any function
here || has this exactness here any function || any function
here, doesn't it run idle?
And we haven't even determined yet what
is to pass as || we're to
call “crossing this sharp boundary”;
how, with what instruments,
it || this fact is to be established,
etc..
We understand what is meant by setting || it meansto set || , setting a watch exactly to the minute || to the exact time, or – regulating it so that it runs accurately. But what if someone should ask || asked: is this exactness an ideal exactness, or how far does it approximate to it? – We may || can, of course, talk about || of measurements of time || time measurements in connection with || for which there is a different and as we should say greater exactness || exactness, and, as we should say, a greater one than there is in connection with time measurements || that of a time measurement by a watch. Where the words “setting it || the clock exactly to the minute || to the exact time” have a different, although || though a related, meaning, and 63 where reading the
clock is a different process, etc..–
If now I say to someone, || :
“You ought to come more
punctually to luncheon || to lunch more punctually; you
know that it begins || we
start exactly at one o'clock”,
– is it not really
exactness that is being spoken of here, – because someone
may say, || could you say,
there
is || there's no question of exactness here at
all: “think of how the time is
ascertained || measured in a
laboratory, or in an observatory, there you see what
‘exactness’ means”?
“Inexact”, – that is || that's really an expression of blame, and “exact” an expression of || that really suggests blame, and “exact” suggests praise. And that means surely: || that's to say: what is || what's inexact does not || doesn't achieve its aim as completely as what is || what's more exact. So that it all depends on || upon what we call “the aim” || the “aim”. Is it || Are we being inexact if we don't tell the joiner the breadth of the table to
Think || So think therefore of the elastic ways of using || how we stretch the use of the words “exact”, || and “inexact”. – One ideal of exactness is not || There isn't one ideal of exactness provided; we don't know what we ought to understand by such a thing || such a thing's to be like – unless you yourself stipulate what is to be called so || “the ideal of exactness”. But it will be difficult for you || you will find it difficult to hit upon || make such a stipulation; || , one that || which satisfies you. |
To cite this element you can use the following URL:
BOXVIEW: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,62[4]et62[5]et63[1]et63[2]et63[3]_n
RDF: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,62[4]et62[5]et63[1]et63[2]et63[3]_n/rdf
JSON: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,62[4]et62[5]et63[1]et63[2]et63[3]_n/json