On Apr 15, 2:03 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang Cernoch
>
> <wolfgangcern...@[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 Pr=E4dikat 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 "Inh=E4renz" 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 "unvollst=E4ndige Summendefinition", the
> >second kind of sentences "vollst=E4ndige 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).
Your mimikry of philosophy
> >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.
|
