| “But i[t|s]n't the ˇit
an inexact explanation inexact surely after
all?” –
Yes, [w|W]hy
shouldn't we
not call it “inexact”?
We understand what i[s|t] mean[t|s] by to, settingch a watch
63 and where reading the
clock is a different process, etc..–
If now I say to/someone, :
“You ought to come ˇto lunch more
puctu punctually to luncheon; you
know that
[I|“]Inexact”, – that's is really an expression of suggests blame, and “exact” and expression of suggests praise. And that's means surely: to say: what's is inexact does_ n[o|']t achieve its aim as completely as what's is more exact. So that it ˇall depends
So [T|t]hink therefore of the elastic ways how we strech the use of using the words “exact”, and “ine[a|x]act”. – ˇThere isn't One ideal of exactness is not provided; we don't know what we ought to understand by such a thing'sˇ to be like – unless you yourself stipulate what is to be called so ˇ“the ideal of exactness”. But it you will be ˇfind it difficult for you to
|
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]_d
RDF: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,62[4]et62[5]et63[1]et63[2]et63[3]_d/rdf
JSON: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ts-226,62[4]et62[5]et63[1]et63[2]et63[3]_d/json