On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang Cernoch
<wolfgangcernoch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>My English is really terrible, I hope, Your German ist good enough to
>read Kant, because with Kant in English I can see only logical
>problems. no transcendentalphilosophic problems. This is a problem, at
>first for the english readers, they only understood the half (Like my
>English says only the half, if i speak or write).
What logical problems? Have you seen the Werner S. Pluhar english
translation? Which english translation have you read?
>But our question ist not a transcendental problem. I wrote in my first
>lesson (I am the teacher in this school!): "there is a difference
>between putting two numbers together (this give us two elements) or to
>add the number 5 and the number 7: the second operation give us 12
>elements."
Putting the two numbers together also gives a single number, 57.
>This means, that Bolzano dont think at first on the natural series of
>numbers (1, 2, 3, ... n), he think on a series of Elements, of which
>we can say, it is the first element, the second, and so on, but its
>count every Element only as "one". We can also count the series of
>natural numbers: "1" ist the first number, "2" is the second number,
>and so on, but every Element of this series is a number, which count
>not the same; "1" count one , "2" count two, and so on.
>
>Addition is not counting numbers. If I count the numbers 1, 2, 3, I
>get three, like if I count three elements with the value 1 or a other
>value. If I add the numbers 1, 2, 3, than I get 6. How Russell tells
>us also, means "1" one element, "2" two elements, "3" three elements,
>and so on. Addition means, that we have to count the Elements, which
>given by the numbers. 1 + 2 + 3 as numbers give one and two and three
>elements, counting this elements give us six elements, which means
>everything, numbers, triangels, sunsystems. Counting three numbers,
>give as three elements, which means three numbers. -- You see the
>difference!
I never graduated from elementary school...
>Kant start to think about this as a problem of grammar in simple S - P-
>sentences
Those are judgments, not merely sentences defined by rules of grammar,
just as addition is not merely counting.
>(Subjekt und Prädikat eines einfachen Satzes, z. B.: VxFx).
>To give a predicat (not a statement!) to the subjekt is in one point
>similar to counting: it says nothing about, how we can construct the
>subjekt to get the quality of the predicat. In former centuries, we
>have called this problem the ontological problem of "Inhärenz" or
>"inesse". So is the next step, to think about numbers as proposition,
>and addittion should be a defined relation between sentences
>(propositions). A number is now a propostion, which say something like
>"This element ist the first, second, third, ... and so on" or "This
>number have one, two, three ... and so on elements". For example: If I
>say: "There is a cow and a horse", than I can count one cow and one
>horse, but two animals, or at least two "things". It is the same
>structur of the judgment (means logical proposition). -- Bolzano called
>the first kind of sentences "unvollständige Summendefinition", the
>second kind of sentences "vollständige Summendefinition". The first
>kind of sentences defined the place in a series of undefined elements,
>and the relation between such sentences are not formal definable,
>because, for example, we dont know, from which side we have start to
>count (its remembering me a little on my discovery of the Argument of
>Inkongruenz few years befor Buroker).
>
>Only the second kind of sentences allowed to define a complete
>relation between the propositions, we called "numbers", and the
>relation is defined with a grammar operation, we called in arithmetics
>"addition": counting the "elements" of all given numbers (this are the
>predicats of the elements as subjekt of the propositions), not
>counting numbers (propositions). There is no platonic idea "behind" a
>number in the formal solution, about Kant start to think, and which
>Bolzano have worked out. "Every concept must be defined by a schema of
>constructing"!
>
>Now Your homework: Write me, what You think about Burokers Argument
>of Inkongruence in constructs of pure imagination!
I don't like it.
|
