Consider the following sentences:
1) A mathematical form cannot burn.
2) The sense of perception cannot burn.
3) Water cannot burn.
4) This piece of wet wood cannot burn.
Now 1) and 2) have the same form as 3) and 4). But actually, 1) and 2) are either trivial (for logical and categorial reasons)or they are nonsense, whereas 3) and 4) offer important empirical information about things in the world.
The positive form of 1) "A Mathematical form can burn" is nonsensical, not because it contradicts some empirical fact, but because it abuses the meaning of "mathematical form". Therefore this sentence is nonsensical, it abuses grammar and it makes a category mistake in Ryle's and Husserl's sense. (See Husserl's example about the sense of the perception of a tree, later he comments that it is Widersinnig. See Bernet's quotation in his paper Husserls Begriff des Noema) So the negative form"--A mathematical form can burn" must also be nonsensical. Then the sentence "A mathematical form cannot burn", which is only a rephrase of the negative form must be nonsensical as well. But it seems to make sense. But if it expresses anything at all, it expresses only this :That "burn" is not something can be rightly applied to mathematical form according to their categorial form. In this way, it expresses something quite trivial, something about the use of words.
Now, I think 3) is in a position between 1),2) and 4), it expresses something emprical. Yet there is some differences here.
Consider:
5) This piece of wet wood can burn.
Makes perfect sense.
While
6) Water can burn.
is either (empirically) trivially false or makes no sense at all.
It seems to me the difference lies here, "wet wood" and some other similar things like "coal", "plastic" are the kind of things that can burn or fail to burn. If you want to know it, you need to find out empirically in each case. But in the case of "water", it seems that you can know without seeing. Then it seems to me that though "Water cannot burn" as well "Water can burn" make sense, they are quite trivial things to say. But in any case, if one says "Nonesense" to a person who says "Water can burn", I will not be suprised. If one says "Nonesense" to a person who says "This piece of wet wood can burn", then I must take him to say "It is false" not that "It is nonsensical".
1) A mathematical form cannot burn.
2) The sense of perception cannot burn.
3) Water cannot burn.
4) This piece of wet wood cannot burn.
Now 1) and 2) have the same form as 3) and 4). But actually, 1) and 2) are either trivial (for logical and categorial reasons)or they are nonsense, whereas 3) and 4) offer important empirical information about things in the world.
The positive form of 1) "A Mathematical form can burn" is nonsensical, not because it contradicts some empirical fact, but because it abuses the meaning of "mathematical form". Therefore this sentence is nonsensical, it abuses grammar and it makes a category mistake in Ryle's and Husserl's sense. (See Husserl's example about the sense of the perception of a tree, later he comments that it is Widersinnig. See Bernet's quotation in his paper Husserls Begriff des Noema) So the negative form"--A mathematical form can burn" must also be nonsensical. Then the sentence "A mathematical form cannot burn", which is only a rephrase of the negative form must be nonsensical as well. But it seems to make sense. But if it expresses anything at all, it expresses only this :That "burn" is not something can be rightly applied to mathematical form according to their categorial form. In this way, it expresses something quite trivial, something about the use of words.
Now, I think 3) is in a position between 1),2) and 4), it expresses something emprical. Yet there is some differences here.
Consider:
5) This piece of wet wood can burn.
Makes perfect sense.
While
6) Water can burn.
is either (empirically) trivially false or makes no sense at all.
It seems to me the difference lies here, "wet wood" and some other similar things like "coal", "plastic" are the kind of things that can burn or fail to burn. If you want to know it, you need to find out empirically in each case. But in the case of "water", it seems that you can know without seeing. Then it seems to me that though "Water cannot burn" as well "Water can burn" make sense, they are quite trivial things to say. But in any case, if one says "Nonesense" to a person who says "Water can burn", I will not be suprised. If one says "Nonesense" to a person who says "This piece of wet wood can burn", then I must take him to say "It is false" not that "It is nonsensical".
No comments:
Post a Comment