From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Apr 25 05:03:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56544 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2005 12:03:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2005 12:03:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2005 12:03:07 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DQ2I7-0000Rb-0l for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:02:19 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DQ2HG-0000Fh-EQ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:01:32 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DQ2Gk-0000F0-Qo for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:00:55 -0700 Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DQ2GR-0000EI-70 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:00:54 -0700 Received: by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix, from userid 72) id 4D34A31D78; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:00:02 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [139.179.111.101] (ppp101.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.111.101]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02DE27053 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:59:59 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <426CDD98.9010405@bilkent.edu.tr> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:07:52 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 MultiZilla/1.6.4.0b X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20050422210636.31022.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050422210636.31022.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9869 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: robin From: robin Reply-To: robin@bilkent.edu.tr Subject: [lojban] Re: Something Wittgenstein wrote ... X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24238 John E Clifford wrote: > --- "Ryan Gray," wrote: > >>In Culture and Value Wittgenstein made an >>interesting point. He wrote: >> >>"Philosophers who say: 'after death a timeless >>state will begin', or: >>'at death a timeless state begins', and do not >>notice that they have >>used the words 'after' and 'at' and 'begins' in >>a temporal sense, and >>that temporality is embedded in their grammar." >> >>or if having the origingal German helps: >>"Die Philosophen, welche sagen: >>nach dem Tod >>wird ein zeitloser >>Zustand eintreten<<, oder: >>mit dem Tod tritt >>ein zeitloser Zustand >>ein<<, und nicht merken, dass sie im zeitlichen >>Sinne >>nach<< und >> >>>>mit<< und tritt ein<< gesagt haben, und, dass >> >>die Zeitlichkeit in >>ihrer Grammatik liegt." >> >>Whether or not you agree or disagree with >>Wittgenstein or the people >>he is mentioning, how would one say: "after >>death a timeless state >>will begin", or: "at death a timeless state >>begins" in Lojban and >>would you be able to do so without making the >>mistake Wittgenstein is >>talking about? >> > > Mad Ludwig is being , as usual, a tad opaque > here. I suppose that he means that we can't talk > about the beginning of a timeless event, since > that beginning is both a part of the event and > presupposes more time in the event (the middle, > even the end, and so on). I suspect this is just > another verbal muddle of the sort ML is said to > be good at untangling, though he does not seem to > be doing so here. Part of the problem is just > figuring out what a timeless state might be, > since a state is already an event assuming a > passage of time (during which the relevant > factors do not change). But, that aside, that > the state begins need not be a part of the state > -- or rather our report of that state need not be > in the "time-frame" of that state. Clearly we > who report it continue in a temporal situation. > What we are presumably reporting is that -- for > the dead person (?) -- there are no more changes > and hence no more time (since change is as much > the measure of time as time of change). So we > might bettewr say that change ceases, which does > not raise the problem: it neither postulates a > state nor puts an aspect of *that state* in play. > Of course, this is all theologically iffy and we > should, I suppose, be able to say something from > other theological points of view -- but on these > matters, theologians have notoriously failed over > the centuries (and, more amazingly, have often > admitted they failed). So, we speak with the > vulgar and hop[e that we will not be > misunderstood (speaking about what can not be > spoken about and yet writing a fairly long essay > on the topic). > If I remember rightly, the main point Wittgenstein was making that death isn't a timeless state; it is not a state (or even an event) at all. We only have a concept of death because of the way language works, not because there is any state we can point to and call "death". robin.tr -- "I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another where the best fruit is." -- Terry Pratchett Robin Turner IDMYO Bilkent Universitesi Ankara 06533 Turkey www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin